old man emu Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 Reported on the TV news this morning was the death of an aerobatic pilot during a routine at a Polish Air Show. Looked like a high speed stall coming out of a low level loop. If you happen to see the story come up on the TV, mute the sound. The Australian voice over I heard was such a load of BS, as usual. RIP an aerial entertainer
Guest Maj Millard Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 Looked more like starting a manouver without sufficient recovery height to me...Looked like he only needed another 20 feet or so...............................Maj...
Guest turnbase Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 RIP another entertainer to be sorely missed by all who loves aerobatics.
winsor68 Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 He certainly was performing very low... I thought the first one was going to be a crash. He didn't leave any margin for error in his routine.
djpacro Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 and it is extremely difficult judging height above water when doing aerobatics. 1
djpacro Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 CASA generally doesn't approve specific details of an aerobatic display these days but such considerations may feature in approving the minimum height of an individual. The two accidents a while back toughened their approach and I guess the one here that I just heard about tonight might also cause a rethink amongst some. Some stuff down low is just a matter of time before a minuscule error in judgement or execution results in tragedy. Disappointing that so many applaud (or think it is "cool") efforts to equal prior feats of low level derring-do.
winsor68 Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 Do you think that they make the choice to attempt to be "old and bold" pilots or do you think ones safety barriers are lowered slowly by this type of flying? I wonder how the safety statistics measure up between us regular pilots and the Redbull "super" style pilots.?
FlyingVizsla Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 I have nearly finished re-reading Tony Kern's book Darker Shades of Blue - The Rogue Pilot and can't help thinking there may be an element of the Rogue in this incident. The Rogue believes that he is a superior pilot and the system was designed for lesser persons, therefore he flouts the regulations. He is also socially adept and works the politics with his superiors extremely well so they condone and encourage his indiscretions. Those in authority laud his rule breaking and reckless behaviour, lesser mortals try to emulate it and usually end up worse off, the Rogue usually writes himself off in a finis-flight and the public tut-tuts about unsafe aviation and we end up with more regulation. Tony offers up a number of airshow "disasters" as examples of the Rogue. Fascinating human factors stuff that make the RAAus HF look so boring. I intend to re-read his other book "Redefining Airmanship". I saw the footage on the ABC TV news where the presenter rambled on about mechanical problems, smoke coming out of the engine, lost control, plummeted to the ground etc - I am guessing the script writer had never seen an aerobatics display before. Sue
winsor68 Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 What I am wondering is... Are they really rogues? Is Matt Hall a rogue because no matter which way you look at it low flying particularly at high gees is dangerous which is what Redbull is... sure its done within a strict set of guidelines I am sure but an element of danger and risk is accepted that myself and the everyday pilot would consider high. Or... are they calculated risk takers... that suffer the statistical consequences.
FlyingVizsla Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 Tony make a distinction between exceptional pilots who push the envelope but do it 'safely'. The Rogue is dangerous. One example he examined concerned a pilot who continually flouted the technical & aeronatical limitations, but was allowed to get away with it, indeed was promoted to a check & training and standards position. Other senior pilots were so concerned about his behaviour that they would not allow their staff on his crew. Management ignored video evidence and numerous reports about breaches. At the airshow briefing his flights were restricted to bank <45 deg, pitch <25 deg, (which exceeded regulations) which he repeatedly ignored during practice with senior staff on board and monitoring on the ground. His commander then limited him to <65 bank & <45 pitch which was outside grossly outside limits, but in their mind he was "Mr Airshow". He crashed killing all on board. Tony's contention is that these Rogues begin with progressive deviations towards undisciplined behaviour and these can be, should be, nipped in the bud. To allow the behaviour to flourish is to encourage others to emulate it, with disaterous results. He points out there was a time when aviation needed Rogues, people who would push the bounds with no regard for their own life - that was in the early years, when a pilot pushed his luck and flew the first all nighter in foul weather to show that the mail could go coast to coast in a day. Once it was done the industry then set about working out how to do it safely. These are extreme examples. He also mentions the one act Rogue, the failing pilot, the over inflated ego. It's one of those books you read and recognise the behaviours of people you knew. Although its major focus is aviation, you will quickly see it is applicable to other industries. Where ever there are people, risk and regulation. Sue
djpacro Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 Or... are they calculated risk takers... that suffer the statistical consequences. I have my personal list of those I categorised (or did categorise) as "rogue pilots" per Tony Kern which I won't be discussing in public. "Calculated risk" is a phrase that some toss at me occasionally by hotshot aerobatic pilots - doesn't impress me as that one phrase is generally as much as they have thought about the whole subject of risk management and TEM per CAAP 155-1 or FAA AC 60-22 for example. Some leave, or used to leave, or even just on one occasion for the tv cameras not enough margin for a minuscule error in execution (perhaps as a result of a mechanical fault) or judgement (perhaps arising from weather or density height). Much better to allow enough margin for two errors. The magnitude of the errors to provide for? One mitigating action would be per Sean Tucker: "The air show environment is very scary when you're not prepared. I fly three times every day. . . . I practice every maneuver thousands of times before I make it a part of my performance." Whis is when win's question needs to be asked regarding complacency and the related effects of peer pressure - part of the risk management process which is particularly important - for any type of flying.
Guest rocketdriver Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Been a policy of mine for many years .... unfortunately I broke the rule last week by not recognising that the runway width restriction imposed by the recent wet weather took away one of the necessary margins ..... so that when I lost control of the direction of the landing roll out (bent axle?) and ran onto the grass (bog more like) I tipped it onto its back. Lucky there was no fire ...... Cheers RD
djpacro Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 From "a reliable source" a suggestion that the low cloud base on the day led to attempting the display sequence from a lower height than practiced. Regardless, that was certainly a factor in another well known airshow accident a while back. To have and be in current practice with three different display sequences - standard, flat and intermediate - is common and thoroughly recommended. http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CivilAirDisplaysAGuideforPilots.pdf I wonder how many local aerobatic display pilots currently do this.
Guest rocketdriver Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Hi RD,Under your unfortunate circumstances, I would have thought the aerodrome operator should have closed the strip. The ALA requirements are that the runway strip and even the areas adjacent the strip shall allow an aircarft to safely diverge over without causing damage to the aircraft. Under the conditions you found yourself in such a light aircarft nearly burying itself in the soft ground, should not the strip have been closed? David Possibly ... not for me to say really. I knew the ground was soft and not to use the gravel runway for that reason, I just didn't know how much soft and wet. .... and truthfully, I don't think I thought about it too much .... should have, and will next time, but .... To soon old, too late smart! ...... cheers RD
djpacro Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 I've seen an aeroplane turn over on the grass at Leongatha and know of similar incidents at Moorabbin etc after departing the sealed surface. Noted the current NOTAM for Leongatha ALL GRASSED AREAS NOT AVBL DUE SOFT WET SFC I stopped operating at an otherwise very pleasant airfield because of the risk of departing the narrow sealed runway - I just love Tocumwal.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now