Why all the crashes? (long)

[Ken Ibold]

I have been thinking a lot about what seems like a high mortality rate in the air show circuit this year -- and other related aerobatics musings. I talked at great lengths with some of the best aerobatic pilots in the world last week, and I just wanted to post some observations. There is, in fact, a specific airplane I fear may be next.

Look at the specifics of the accidents all you want, but there are a few issues I keep coming back to. The experienced people get bitten by one, the less experienced get bitten by another. Maybe there’s some overlap, but then again, maybe not.

The first observation is that aerobatics is an extreme sport, so “safety” is something of an illusion. Yes, the number of aerobatic fatalities has declined year to year in recent history. But I fear that trend may stop or even reverse itself. Top-end aerobatic airplanes are supremely capable things, and only a small percentage of pilots in the world can use their full capabilities. That being the case, I think it’s also the case that many pilots get in over their head attempting to best the airplane. Instead, it bests them.

Aerobatic training is hard to come by, and those that provide it typically stack maneuvers on top of maneuvers to give the student full exposure to the envelope covered by the course. I think many, many students drink from the firehose and then promptly get themselves into trouble when they misapply what they learned or leave out a crucial step. It calls to mind a pilot in a Pitts who botched a hammerhead and went into an inverted spin. She stomped anti spin rudder, forgetting that when inverted it was pro-spin rudder.

One of the truly difficult parts of aerobatics is knowing when you’re qualified to start experimenting with new maneuvers on your own. It’s unrealistic to say “never,” so what you’re left with is the need to be able to get yourself out of jams. That means advanced spin training – and not just a handful of one-turn spins from an intentional upright stall. Before tackling aerobatics, you should be confident you can recover the airplane from any combination of attitude and airspeed. Yet in a goal-oriented training program in which the instructor (or student) aims to cover 15 maneuvers in 10 flights, spins get the short shrift.

Finally, when it comes to air shows, the pilots are being victimized by the desensitization of the crowd to aerobatics – which leads to ever more extreme shows. One old, bold air show pilot said he tried to never leave himself without an out. Then he got a new airplane and inserted a new maneuver that did not have an out. One mechanical hiccup and the airplane crashed. He survived, but retired from air show flying.

Some existing acts – and I put Jimmy Franklin’s and Bobby Younkin’s show into this category – use maneuvers that, essentially, have no outs. In the case of the Masters of Disaster, a look at the old promotional video on the web site shows them going belly-to-belly twice. They basically ran the act as a combat engagement, yet they lost sight of the fundamental rule of “lose sight, lose fight.” And they joked about their close calls after the shows, according to one person I talked to. Another current act operates at high angles of attack and low airspeed at a very, very low altitude. Again, no out. This pilot is living on borrowed time. Is the public demanding this extremism? Look at the crowds that show up for the Red Bull races and you have your answer.

This rambles a bit more than I’d like, but I’m trying to get my arms around this thing as well. Air show flying (and aerobatics in general) is certainly more dangerous than knocking around the pattern on a calm sunny morning. And when you’re learning – which can be said about pretty much EVERY aerobatic pilot – resist the temptation to take shortcuts or push yourself at an uncomfortable pace.

“It’s hard. Of course it’s hard. If it was easy everyone would do it.” – Tom Hanks in “A League of Their Own”

 

[wsuffa]

Ken,

Is it your sense that some of this happens for competitive reasons - in which case the solution may end up being "regulatory" as opposed to self-discipline?

bill

 

[Ken Ibold]

Ken,

Is it your sense that some of this happens for competitive reasons - in which case the solution may end up being "regulatory" as opposed to self-discipline?

bill

Bill, I think virtually all of it is competitiveness. The air show performers have to be bigger and badder to get more/better bookings. The competition types try to move up to higher categories as fast as possible, taking shortcuts along the way if necessary, IMO.

 

[Toby]

Ken,

Thank you for a thoughtful piece. You didn't ramble; there is a lot to be said on this topic. One thing that nags at me -- and I just reread what you said about being confident that you can recover from any attitude and any airspeed before tackling aerobatics -- is that there is a little bit of a chicken and egg thing going on here. Suppose a person gets more comprehensive training over a period of many months, not a quickie program. Suppose there is spin training and upset recovery and all that. At some point it is going to be solo time, and this pilot is going to be tackling maneuvers that were learned, and even though they were taught and done with an instructor, now we're into the area of experimenting, in a sense, because they're experiments to this new pilot. They're experiments because they're being done solo. New combinations of attitude and airspeed are going to be encountered, and this pilot had better figure out how to recover, because not every situation can be known ahead of time or played out with an instructor.

There doesn't seem to be any way to avoid some sort of experimental phase, in other words. How many hours or months or repetitions of a maneuver make up this phase, before that confidence comes?

I'm asking this rhetorically, of course. I don't know the answer. Too much caution might inhibit practice. Too little caution -- well, the risks are real.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Bill, I think virtually all of it is competitiveness. The air show performers have to be bigger and badder to get more/better bookings. The competition types try to move up to higher categories as fast as possible, taking shortcuts along the way if necessary, IMO.

One way or another, most of those aerobatic pilots get a fair amount of money for their work that they love.

Pilot's pushing their aerodynamic performance limits for more money via their increased reputation is only one facet of a self limiting system that in spite of peaks and troughs, maintains its own equilibrium.

 

[Ken Ibold]

One way or another, most of those aerobatic pilots get a fair amount of money for their work that they love.

I have to disagree with this.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I have to disagree with this.

Any specifics ?

I also should have been more specific and said something of all the unique rewards they acquire that are broader and more esoteric than just money, which I've heard can't buy happiness, but I've found can go a real long ways toward it.

 

[Bill]

Ken, thanks for your thoughts. The events of the last few weeks have had great effect on decisions regarding what type of flying I want to do, and of what types of aircraft I may want to purchase. All of these guys were really good, if it can bite them, I know sure as hell that it can get me in a blink.

Food for thought.

 

[Diana]

Aerobatic training is hard to come by

Well, I can certainly attest to that one. It's especially hard in rural America. And try to find an aerobatic instructor that knows how to do acro in a Citabria. It's pretty hard to do in some locales.

I wonder if there are any solutions for the lack of available training facilities/instructors?

Yet in a goal-oriented training program in which the instructor (or student) aims to cover 15 maneuvers in 10 flights, spins get the short shrift.

On a trip one time, I scheduled a lesson somewhere with my stated intention of getting spin training. I ended up getting rolls, and no spins.

One of the truly difficult parts of aerobatics is knowing when you’re qualified to start experimenting with new maneuvers on your own.

Yet another dilemma. How DO you know? How much spin training? And how far do you have to go to get it? Do you need to do it in your own airplane?

This rambles a bit more than I’d like, but I’m trying to get my arms around this thing as well. And when you’re learning – which can be said about pretty much EVERY aerobatic pilot – resist the temptation to take shortcuts or push yourself at an uncomfortable pace.

Ken, as usual, you have made some valid and excellent points. You cut to the heart of the matter. And you hit close to home.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and insight.

 

[Iceman]

Finally, when it comes to air shows, the pilots are being victimized by the desensitization of the crowd to aerobatics – which leads to ever more extreme shows.

I think desensitization is a large factor with airshow pilots pushing themselves too far just to please the crowd. Just going back 5 years ago it was normal to do a hammerhead multiple times during a performance. Now it appears that a looong tailslide is common place and multiple snap rolls are just a way of warming up the pilot.

I know almost nothing about aerobatic flying but just reflecting back on last weeks airshow I felt a little uncomfortable when a yellow pitts did a very long tail slide must have been going 80-100? kts backwards and then did 3 snap rolls and flattened out inverted. He was very close to the ground by the time he was level again. It was fun to watch but I wonder how large the margin of error was on that series of maneuvers?

Good points Ken!

 

[Ken Ibold]

Any specifics ?

I also should have been more specific and said something of all the unique rewards they acquire that are broader and more esoteric than just money, which I've heard can't buy happiness, but I've found can go a real long ways toward it.

Well, in rereading this I conceptually lumped competition types with airshow types in my head, but I didn't really make that clear in my post. However, having said that, even the airshow types are in a continual scramble for sponsor dollars, and those dollars are mighty hard to find. One top name performer once confided that the sponsorship obligations (meet and greets and the like) were like a cancer that threatened to make the whole life not worth it.

Like any "entertainment" business, the top names make good money. But there are a whole lot of airshow performers who have no (or only a couple) minor sponsors, who fly on their own dime to the shows, and who perform in exchange for a tank of avgas, simply for the pleasure of doing it and for whatever ego strokes they get out of being in front of a crowd. These are the guys who spend most of their time with real jobs. In between those two extremes are the guys who make enough of a name that they can operate one of the dozen or so "name" aerobatic schools.

 

[Skyport]

Ken-

Something that has been lost in the current obsession with high energy aerobatics is that to an airshow crowd a big, noisy, smoky, Stearman (Taperwing, Great Lakes, Beech 18) is frequently much more interesting to watch than an endless series of high energy snap maneuvers in a tiny aircraft.

Before the Eastern Bloc went all out to win the World Championship GREAT pilots like Hal Krier were doing airshows in planes like the Great Lakes, and KrierKraft, and the audience was quite happy with the Barnstormer aero being done, it was fun, it was easy to follow. Then the Eastern Bloc began an aerobatic "arms" race by developing aircraft that could do unique maneuvers never seen before. Now even weekend aerobatic competitors are doing maneuvers that test pilots hadn't performed just a few years ago, and those same aerobatic competitors are doing airshows demonstrating competition maneuvers that, while difficult to perform, and very demanding on both man and machine, are in fact frequently boring to watch, and difficult to follow. How many times do you want to watch a tiny Pitts do mutiple snaps on the downwind??????

In WWII Primary the entire stall series was taught, top rudder, bottom rudder, accelerated, etc, only upright spins were taught. In addition to Slow Rolls, Snap Rolls (Horizontal Spins actually), Loops, and Immelmans. That was essentially the entire aerobatic training of a fighter pilot. But, an important BUT, it was practiced over and over, there was no rush from unlearned maneuver to unlearned maneuver to make the student feel they had gotten their money's worth, to make them think they were more accomplished than they were. The only goal was to train to proficiency in the basic maneuvers, to turn out safe pilots.

I find it interesting that students who can't even do the basics are being rushed into complex maneuvers, are being given training in spins that only Experimental Test Pilots did just a few years ago???????????

My mentor said "Learn to make one plane sing and dance, and you'll be able to make others walk and talk", in this case learn the basics first.

Tom-

 

[Ken Ibold]

Ken-

Something that has been lost in the current obsession with high energy aerobatics is that to an airshow crowd a big, noisy, smoky, Stearman (Taperwing, Great Lakes, Beech 18) is frequently much more interesting to watch than an endless series of high energy snap maneuvers in a tiny aircraft.

Tom, I tend to agree with you on this. I liken airshow routines to drum or guitar solos at rock concerts. Most these days seem to be aimed at showing off technical proficiency that's lost on the layman, rather than being a pleasant melodious exercise in self-indulgence. Two examples: Bobby Younkin's Decathlon air show demonstration was quite elegant. Patty Wagstaff's AirVenture show was chock full of violent maneuvers and virtually all of them were negative g/outside snap kind of stuff. Hard, yes, but fun to watch, not really.

 

[Skyport]

Ken-

And let's not forget Duane Cole's great performance in a simple, low powered, clip-wing, T-craft. It required skill, great coordination, and planning, to achieve such an impressive performance from such a pedestrian aircraft. And who in the crowd ever looked away when Bob Hoover was flying, and he did nothing except big, graceful rolls and loops, probably one of the safest acts in the industry, and universally admired by pilots and non-pilots.

Tom-

 

[Toby]

I saw Bobby fly his Beech 18 last fall at the Sussex Air Show (NJ), and it, too, was a graceful performance.

 

[poadeleted20]

I have two observations.

One is from the timeless "Great Waldo Pepper," in which the air show promoter is telling Waldo and Axel to come back when they have an act in which the crowd thinks they're going to die, and then says, "Make that an act where the crowd is sure you're going to die." These days, with crowds desensitized by Hollywood make-believe and special effects into thinking anything's possible, that's very hard to do in reality.

The other observation is that we now have aircraft that are more capable than the humans that fly them. That's one reason the armed forces are looking at unoccupied combat air vehicles (UCAV's) as the future -- they can pull g-loads in, rotate and around, all three axes at rates that the human body simply cannot withstand, even with all the weight and other physical training that fighter crews are required to do these days, and the new generation g-suits that are coming with the F-22 and F-35.

Some of this technology (engine power-to-weight, strength of materials, load analysis, etc), is trickling down to the light aerobatic planes like the Extra 300 and Sukhois, to the point that even some light planes can do more than a human can stand. The tumbling maneuvers done these days with the aircraft actually departed from controlled flight put on the pilot extreme loads that rapidly change from max positive to max negative and back. I wonder just how well-equipped some of these show pilots are to take the physical stresses that are imposed on them by flying to their aircraft's limits? I don't care how much weight training you do, if the g-load onsets are fast enough, you need outside help in the form of the "smart" suits the F-22 is coming with, that anticipate g-loads based on control inputs (in the F-22, everything is tied together through the Vehicle Management System) so they can provide assistance in a timely manner, and which are to the "chaps" style suits I wore what the F-22 is to the P-51. I doubt that's an option Walter Extra is offering, and I wonder just how much all the air show performers do to maximize their bodies' g-load tolerance and limit their maneuvers to what their body, not the aircraft, can stand.

 

[Iceman]

I doubt that's an option Walter Extra is offering, and I wonder just how much all the air show performers do to maximize their bodies' g-load tolerance and limit their maneuvers to what their body, not the aircraft, can stand.

Ron, do you know about how long it takes a normal person to return to normal after a blackout? Is it one-two seconds or longer? I'm just wondering if there would be time for a person to recover their aircraft after they pushed it too far.

 

[Toby]

Ron, do you know about how long it takes a normal person to return to normal after a blackout? Is it one-two seconds or longer? I'm just wondering if there would be time for a person to recover their aircraft after they pushed it too far.

I don't know about length, but one of the airshow guys here blacked out during a maneuver, woke up and managed to get the airplane under enough control to make the ensuing crash survivable. This was followed by months in the hospital.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, do you know about how long it takes a normal person to return to normal after a blackout? Is it one-two seconds or longer? I'm just wondering if there would be time for a person to recover their aircraft after they pushed it too far.

Bruce can probably answer this better than I, but I once saw a cockpit video from an F-16 in which the pilot blacked out after a 9-g snatch -- for almost a minute. The audio includes his wingman shouting for him to do something, anything, which he finally did when he woke up, as he was fortunately at fairly high altitude when it happened. I think it is wildly variable, depending on how the the blackout occurs and whether the g-load is sustained after the blackout, as well as the condition of the pilot and the support systems (e.g., g-suits) he's got.

 

[bbchien]

Bruce can probably answer this better than I, but I once saw a cockpit video from an F-16 in which the pilot blacked out after a 9-g snatch -- for almost a minute. The audio includes his wingman shouting for him to do something, anything, which he finally did when he woke up, as he was fortunately at fairly high altitude when it happened. I think it is wildly variable, depending on how the the blackout occurs and whether the g-load is sustained after the blackout, as well as the condition of the pilot and the support systems (e.g., g-suits) he's got.

All of the above is true. And, even worse, if your airway is the sort that closes when you lose consciousness in the half reclined postion, you get hypoxic to boot. Then you have to recover from both. I've seen the video Ron describes...the guy lost about 15,000 feet before he recovered....

 

[Diana]

Perhaps it's time to revisit this subject.

 

[TMetzinger]

As far as airshows are concerned... I'm comparing them to pro football. Look at the size of pro football players, and the often-crippling injuries they incur, all so the crowd can get the vicarious pleasure of the "big hit".

What I observed at OSH this year - the non-pilot airshow spectators seem to enjoy the tumbling manuevers and the extreme flying. The pilots seemed to like the slower and more graceful manuevers.

We could avoid this if they'd just bring back the coliseum and matches to the death.

 

[Lance F]

Perhaps it's time to revisit this subject.

What have the statistics been over the last three years for airshow and aerobatic competition pilots?

 

[dmccormack]

As far as airshows are concerned... I'm comparing them to pro football. Look at the size of pro football players, and the often-crippling injuries they incur, all so the crowd can get the vicarious pleasure of the "big hit".

What I observed at OSH this year - the non-pilot airshow spectators seem to enjoy the tumbling manuevers and the extreme flying. The pilots seemed to like the slower and more graceful manuevers.

We could avoid this if they'd just bring back the coliseum and matches to the death.

At the Pittsburgh Airshow this year the Canadian Snowbirds were the Premiere attraction.

My non-pilot future son-in-law thought the F22 Raptor demonstration was much more impressive, while the Snowbirds were "kinda boring."

It's the difference between WWF and Bolshoi Ballet.

 

[steingar]

Like anything else. People want what's new. Entertainment aerobatics have been pushed until they've finally started to bite back.

 

[Hiperbiper]

What have the statistics been over the last three years for airshow and aerobatic competition pilots?

Not too good.
The Blue Angel's lost a man. Jim Leroy (3rd flying member of the Masters of Disaster. Nancy Lynn died in 2006.
Europe lost a couple of people too...

Too many.

Chris

 

[Trapper John]

At the Pittsburgh Airshow this year the Canadian Snowbirds were the Premiere attraction.

My non-pilot future son-in-law thought the F22 Raptor demonstration was much more impressive, while the Snowbirds were "kinda boring."

It's the difference between WWF and Bolshoi Ballet.

All in the beholder, I guess.

While I have great admiration and respect for the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels, their "close call" manuvers really spoil the experience for me.

Best show ever to me was seeing Bob Hoover do his energy management routine in his Shrike Commander.


Trapper John

 

[vettepilot]

IMHO, if you want to reduce the accident rate at air shows, get rid of the surface-level waiver. No more Cobra maneuvers on takeoff (very high AoA, low altitude, low airspeed), no more low altitude recoveries, no more inverted/knife-edge ribbon cuts, etc... Given that only the first 4 rows of spectators can realistically see these maneuvers anyway, the risk vs. reward for performing them just doesn't seem justified. Even a 75-100 ft deck could provide an extra half of a second for the performer and will allow a greater viewing experience for the spectators not sitting immediately on the flight line.

I also think that a lot of the currently successful acts have by and large gotten rid of MOST of the extremely low-level manuevers, save the ribbon cuts and knife-edge passes. I had the opportunity to see both Jim Leroy and Jimmy Franklin fly individually, and even not having any aerobatic experience at the time it was painfully obvious that they were accidents waiting to happen. Jurgis Kairys flys an absolutely incredible show, but I also think he may be certifiably insane... Most performers nowadays (Tucker, Wagstaff, and Timofeev come to mind) seem to provide their heavy gyroscopic maneuvers at reasonably safe altitudes.

As far as the rest of us non-exhibition pilots are concerned I think several people have the right plan, and that is getting as much spin and unusual attitude training (in addition to the actual maneuvers) as possible before striking out on your own. You also have be incredibly familiar with the spin characteristics of the aircraft you fly. In his book, Alan Cassidy actually mentions the exact Pitts crossover spin that a previous poster mentioned, and he mentions it in the context of being intimately familiar with the tendencies of the airplane. I also think that situational training is very important. I am as green as aerobatic pilots come (~12 hours), and it is scary how different an unusual attitude recovery can be between when an instructor puts you there and when you actually botch a maneuver. Same goes for the spins... As I believe someone else mentioned, spins from straight and level are not the same as those that might occur as a result of a failed maneuver.

Jason

 

[jesse]

The most dangerous (at least to my eyes) performance I've seen is John Mohr in his stock Stearman.

 

[SkyHog]

Slightly related, Ken, but you'll appreciate this (and see that I understand 100% what you mean)...

When I was learning how to wrestle, it was in a BAD time for wrestling. Extreme stunts were all that was going on, and all that the fans were into. Normal, technically sound wrestling was falling by the wayside to people learning to take 30+ foot falls, and landing on thumbtacks and literally beating the snot out of themselves.

Injuries were everywhere, some career ending, some fatal, some just enough to scare everyone involved. It was the future of wrestling, the fans would no longer get into a normal mat match between two technical wrestlers.

What finally changed the process was to deal with the lack of enthusiasm for a while, leave the extreme and hardcore stuff out of the show, and eventually, the fans would come back for the normal stuff. It took a few years, but you'll see that now, even less hardcore stuff from before gets a huge reaction from the fans.

But it takes discipline from everyone involved. The airshow pilots have to be willing, as a whole, to take the time to sit back and realize what must be done, and not let anyone push it too far. Then, slowly work back to where it was before, where certain maneuvers got a real reaction again. Then avoid letting it get out of control again....

I know it saved many wrestler's lives, and I know it could definitely help airshow pilots as well, should it be implemented properly. The difference is that wrestling is heavily controlled by the owners of the group, so it was really just a bunch of people listening to the will of one or two people....pilots don't have the luxury of being organized without intervention

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Yet another dilemma. How DO you know? How much spin training? And how far do you have to go to get it? Do you need to do it in your own airplane?

And beyond the spin training needs to come lots of solo spin practice. Loading and CG is different when you're by yourself...

 

[Hiperbiper]

I am lucky enough to have a couple of really good acro pilots to talk to at DTN so when I have a question or want advise on what to do and more importantly WHAT NOT TO DO all I have to do is ask. And listen.

This is what I've taken away from these Round-Tables:

While spins are indeed dangerous it is not the major killer of Airshow pilots IMPO. Loss of Situational Awareness is the bugaboo. Nancy Lynn did one too many decending rolls for the altitude she had and mushed into the ground during a high-load pullup...Jim Leroy might have done the same type of thing compounded by too much smoke in the aerobatic area. Jimmy Franklin and Bobby Yonkin actually flew different patterns during the MofD shows that gave an impression (forced perspective) that they were always within feet of one another. I'm not saying Franklin, Leroy and Yonkin weren't close but trying to reinforce that these were Professional Airshow Pilots who weren't suicidal or stupid. They just lost SA in the smoke (3 airplanes plus the Jet Truck) and the light conditions and the patterns unfortunatly crossed.



I do Airshow Pyro and have been under Jimmy Franklin in his Waco and Jim Leroy in the Bulldog, Gene Soucy in the Showcat as well as Ed Hamell(sp) in his Pitts and lots and lots of Tora Tora Tora pilots in vintage AC. (and before anyone posts it I have never been under PW but I'm holding out hope...). So I've gotten to see the above mentioned Pilots (plus lots of others) from a different prespective than most and I can say that what the crowd sees is not always what you see up-close-and-personal (think lookin' STRAIGHT UP!). And the outhouse incident at Barksdale with Jimmy Franklin was NOT HIS FAULT... (Bob "No Neck" West of the Tora team inpuned his Honor at the Dinner on Saturday so the Sunday show got a tad...lower...)!

My rambling point is; Art Scholl, Harold Krier, (which WERE both spin accidents but with avoidible causes), Nancy Lynn, Jim Leroy, Jim Franklin, Bobby Yonkin as well as a bunch of Warbirds have REASONS why
they went in. Hopefully someone will learn from all of them. But stopping the Show or changing it to make it "safe" won't work. The only time an Acrobatic Airplane is absolutly safe is when it's at the wash rack. And that would be boring unless the Hooters Girls are involved!

IMPO some of the current Top acts cater to the Holy Sh*t aspect of Airshows with the abrupt manuevers and noise in their 400HP 10 G+/- wizzy-buzzers. But watch a show line. While the act is really low just after takeoff the crowd looks. After that they mill away to get a Coke. They don't understand it. They don't care about the skill required. The last airplane went lower. It was cooler. It made the same amount of noise. They aren't pilots so they don't know or care. I myself can't face more than 3 Extra/Edge/MX? routines in one airshow. But a Beatch-18 with both engines streaming smoke? I'm there. So is the Crowd! It's different!!

In the past pilots had to do acrobatics that the pilot and AIRCRAFT were cabable of. The limitation was the aircraft. Today (and this is not to cast aspursions on anybody) the airplane will do anything with the pilot being the weak link. And sometimes that is what happens.

Low Alitiude? Keep the Airspeed up.
Close to the Dirt? Keep the deck angles low. Positive or negetive.
Murphy is your co-pilot. Plan accordingly.
If your "out" isn't planned prior to leaving the ground it's best not to leave the ground...!.


FWIW
Chris

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm not saying Franklin, Leroy and Yonkin weren't close but trying to reinforce that these were Professional Airshow Pilots who weren't suicidal or stupid. They just lost SA in the smoke (3 airplanes plus the Jet Truck) and the light conditions and the patterns unfortunatly crossed.

I disagree. I have said before and will say again that the MoD group was stupid. Flight patterns in a multi-plane demo don't just "unfortunately" cross. The only reasonably safe way to perform a multi-plane demo is to have every second of the show choreographed, practiced, and adhered to. That's why the Blue Angels fly their routine over 200 times in practice at El Centro before they take the show public, and still talk through the entire routine second-by-second in a preflight briefing immediately before walking out for the performance. The MoD folks made it up as they went along, and it was inevitable that eventually, one (or more) of them would do something that conflicted with one of the others.

 

[t-cart]

I went to Oshkosh this year and have to say,in my opinion, the Twin Beech, Show Cat, and Warren Pietsch, were the highlights of the show. Once again, this is my personal opinion. Well, those and the Raptor.

 

[TMetzinger]

All in the beholder, I guess.
...
Best show ever to me was seeing Bob Hoover do his energy management routine in his Shrike Commander.
Trapper John

I was lucky to go and see Bob at OSH for his last routine there - I treasure it. That and the Jet Waco were my two favorite acts.

And I loved the Raptor - but in reality that's an airplane that's nowhere near it's edge in the routine it does, and the pilot is pretty well within his envelope too.

 

[AdamZ]

Very appropriate debate given the recent Loss of Toby's friend, and CFI/Acro instructor. Keep on learning folks.

 

[tonycondon]

from what I remember about Mohr, he was LOW, but he was also high energy when he was low. Jim Leroy scared me more with his full power high AOA work down low. Seemed to me he was really depending on that power to keep him airborne.

 

[jesse]

from what I remember about Mohr, he was LOW, but he was also high energy when he was low.

I don't think I'd call him anywhere near high energy on some of his maneuvers when he was low. The whole snap roll after takeoff in a Stearman was started by a relative of mine--Johhny Vasey.
http://mnaviationhalloffame.org/HoFPages/hofV1.html

Some of it looked fine, while other parts of his routine often seemed to cut it close with a lot of mush. There isn't much power on a stock stearman. My great great uncle did his show with a 450 hp versus Mohr's 220.

 

[tonycondon]

oh yea, i forgot about the snap roll. didnt watch your whole video.

 

[Trapper John]

I disagree. I have said before and will say again that the MoD group was stupid. Flight patterns in a multi-plane demo don't just "unfortunately" cross. The only reasonably safe way to perform a multi-plane demo is to have every second of the show choreographed, practiced, and adhered to. That's why the Blue Angels fly their routine over 200 times in practice at El Centro before they take the show public, and still talk through the entire routine second-by-second in a preflight briefing immediately before walking out for the performance. The MoD folks made it up as they went along, and it was inevitable that eventually, one (or more) of them would do something that conflicted with one of the others.

You hit the nail on the head. From the accident report by Transport Canada:

1. The Dairy Turn manoeuvre had been modified such that a temporary loss of visual contact could occur immediately before the aircraft crossed flight paths. This modification made timing critical and added two potential points of collision.
2. The manoeuvres immediately before the collision indicated that the performers had not established a clearly understood contract for the revised manoeuvre. The actions of each performer negated the actions of the other, and neither pilot took positive action to regain visual contact.
3. The timing of the manoeuvre was lost when the Waco turned late at show centre.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/2005/a05c0123/a05c0123.asp


Trapper John