Author Topic: Air show tragedy - (Read 2483 times)

eagl · « **Reply #30 on:** July 17, 2006, 05:00:24 AM »

Pooh,

The games are significantly more forgiving than RL. Like 99% more forgiving. Plus jets typically weigh more and have higher wing loading than prop planes so when they are much worse gliders than most prop planes. That means they glide fast and have very poor low speed gliding maneuverability, and they have a lot of energy to dissipate before coming to a stop.

hacksaw1 · « **Reply #31 on:** July 17, 2006, 05:18:07 AM »

He may have ingested a bird on T/O.

Very sad.

Pooh21 · « **Reply #32 on:** July 17, 2006, 05:24:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by eagl
Pooh,

The games are significantly more forgiving than RL. Like 99% more forgiving. Plus jets typically weigh more and have higher wing loading than prop planes so when they are much worse gliders than most prop planes. That means they glide fast and have very poor low speed gliding maneuverability, and they have a lot of energy to dissipate before coming to a stop.

Oh I know all that including trees and terrian and all that, but it is the mindset, you switch to everything going fine, to landing this shotup crate so some fool doesnt get a kill on you like that. It is the mind set I am saying, why private pilots dont train for the unexpected. In my life everytime I saw a fire extinguisher I read the label and instructions, and sure enough about a month ago on my delivery route, someones house caught fire and the had their garden hose, but I just went into automatic mode and put the fire out with my extingiusher. I didnt even think about what I did until I was driving down the road later

eagl · « **Reply #33 on:** July 17, 2006, 06:18:20 AM »

Dunno about "most" private pilots, but I sure did, for a number of reasons. First off, I read a lot of flying history and pilot biographies, and they were always crashing here and there so I sort of grew up thinking that was normal. Second, my civilian instructor kept doing stuff like pulling the power and asking me "what now?". Third, a bunch of accidents near San Diego around the time I was getting my license kept me always thinking about what I'd do if things went wrong.

As a military pilot, we continually train for emergency procedures so our initial responses should come fairly naturally due to the training. That said, engine failure on takeoff is really really bad and it doesn't matter if there are trees, houses, or even empty fields in front of you, chances are you're gonna pack it in hard no matter how good you are. If you're in a jet and don't have the option to eject, you're very often as good as dead the second the engine fails.

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #34 on:** July 17, 2006, 08:31:07 AM »

Hindsight being 20-20, I think the second his engine failed, he should have aimed his plane straight down (towards a non-housed area) and bailed. But who knows, did he even have a parachute on?

Man, being strapped in a engineless fighter jet is about the most dangerous thing in the world. You have thousands of pounds of of explosives on board (fuel), and all that aluminum turns into knives the second you impact.

Dux · « **Reply #35 on:** July 17, 2006, 09:35:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Hindsight being 20-20, I think the second his engine failed, he should have aimed his plane straight down (towards a non-housed area) and bailed. But who knows, did he even have a parachute on?

How quickly do you think someone could unstrap from a jet, open or blow the canopy, climb out of the cramped cockpit, and get a chute open with ample altitude left? We're not talking "hit ENTER 3 times" here.

Golfer · « **Reply #36 on:** July 17, 2006, 11:18:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kurt
No pilot will ever match your prowess Golfer...

What a **** of a response. I hope no one calls your skills in to question if you ever dump one in. Sleep well.

If I take a perfectly flyable airplane and ball it up there's cause to question. Now that there are some details to the story emerging things change a bit.

I'm a cynic, a heck of a cynic especially when it comes to unqualified pilots flying very high performance airplanes into the ground. Nothing more makes me mad than reading a story about some wealthy ******* who couldn't fly out of a wet paper bag burying an airplane into some homes. It's great that they can afford to keep them flying but that doesn't mean they should be the ones flying them.

With the details in the posts prior to mine combined with the effects of a hearty amount of alcohol you have an unfiltered and unbiased opinion. It's staying. No point sugar coating to make others feel warm and fuzzy.

The story I just read stated that the owner of the airplane is an aviation attorney. Unsure if he was flying but pretty likely as he has a history of flying going back to the 60's. If this is air force training then he's one of the few guys qualified to fly the airplane. The old jet technology is a far cry away from computers and even advanced designs with pushrod and pulley flight control systems.

Here is the excerpt from the story According to information on his law firm's Web site, Guilford has been flying planes since 1961. But authorities would not say if he was piloting the plane Sunday. His law firm, Baum Hedlund, did not return a page Sunday.

I have no business in a Hunter and someone without extensive training in a jet from the same era has no business flying one either. This includes F-86's, MiG-15's and the like. This isn't because getting the airplane up and down is that much harder its because of a number of things. It's not because they're that hard to fly. It's because of how it flys due to design and the age of the systems. Things break on 50+ year old airplanes especially ones that are subjected to regular flights with fair amounts of G forces applied to the airframe. I know of more than a few 30 year old business jets that don't go a flight without something being broken and they have never been subjected to military use. Many other airplanes are the same way.

As far as my attitude. I'm not the only one to see both sides of a fatal accident. I watched a friend I now consider a hero take his airplane with a failed engine away from an airshow crowd which cost him his life. I've also watched another guy hot dogging on takeoff plant an Extra into the ground doing a split-s on departure. I'd flown with him numerous times when he had a Pitts and the extra was new to him. I've seen stupid and noble and the stereotypical "rich guy in the toy" or more typical "doctor in a bonanza" have killed more people than engine failures.

With a few details it doesn't look like that, but the NTSB report will provide a probable cause, factual report and list pilot experience. Flying a deadstick jet low to the ground leaves very few options. He either did great with what he had to work with and didn't hurt any innocent people, or he did a lousy job and took a working airplane into a house.

Golfer · « **Reply #37 on:** July 17, 2006, 11:27:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Hindsight being 20-20, I think the second his engine failed, he should have aimed his plane straight down (towards a non-housed area) and bailed. But who knows, did he even have a parachute on?

Man, being strapped in a engineless fighter jet is about the most dangerous thing in the world. You have thousands of pounds of of explosives on board (fuel), and all that aluminum turns into knives the second you impact.

Hunters are single engine airplanes, shrimp.

Just saw Dux's response. That pretty much covers it.

Kurt · « **Reply #38 on:** July 17, 2006, 12:51:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Golfer
the NTSB report will provide a probable cause, factual report and list pilot experience.

And until they do just that your kneejerk reaction is just unkind and crude.

The accident I saw at Pt Mugu was an example of a very well trained pilot trying hard to save a plane (F4 Phantom). This guy had thousands of hours in the type. Navy report showed he had a history of hot dogging and ham fisting.

So yeah, it does happen that the wrong guy gets in the seat and gets killed. But for you to fly immediately to that conclusion is really a disservice to all pilots. You are telling the public that you think most pilots are not properly trained and are unsafe. The reason I think you are saying that about MOST pilots is because if you believed MOST pilots are safe and well trained your immediate reaction would not be to flog this guys reputation as you did. I'm a pilot, you're a pilot.. We both know lots of pilots. Most of the pilots I know make sound decisions, are skilled and I do indeed trust them with my life. I just think your on shakey ground assuming we are dealing with an idiot in this crash.

And if you believe that about MOST pilots, should we not assume that the odds are also against you and your judgement at the stick? If you don't believe the system trains competent pilots, then why would you believe you might not make the same error? And why should we assume the same system trained you better?

Lord knows I've flown off the handle in this board plenty of times, so I'm not going to try to roast you too much on this (hope I'll get the same favor someday in return

)

I just think its kinda cruel to assume the guy was a putz. Maybe he was, but lets wait and find out rather than just burning his reputation based on assumptions about who owns what kind of plane.

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #39 on:** July 17, 2006, 01:38:34 PM »

Golfer they have a video up of the crash. The pilot tries to turn back to the airfield, but the plane doesn't have enough power to even maintain level flight (I think the engine had totally quit). Then when he runs out of airspeed, the plane sinks with a nose high angle of attack.

Paxil · « **Reply #40 on:** July 17, 2006, 02:19:41 PM »

AquaShrimp... if he would have tried a downwind landing instead of trying to go around in the pattern, who knows... might have made it. He took off toward farmland then turned back over the residential area to try for the landing. Considering he landed right on a house... might not have been a good move. Granted... it was in the middle of an air show... and F18's were on the end of the runway, I imagine a ton of radio traffic... confusion... worrying about hitting the crowd etc... not to mentioned a puttering engine and the not so boyish reflexes of a 73 year old. Thank God no one on the ground was hurt ~~to the pilot and hopefully they won't let that ruin future air shows.~~

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #41 on:** July 17, 2006, 02:51:31 PM »

He turned *away* from farm land to try to make it to the runway? He must have been senile!

cpxxx · « **Reply #42 on:** July 17, 2006, 03:46:07 PM »

Golfer's attitude is not untypical of many pilots and if I'm honest I share that view sometimes. More than once I've known pilots who were an accident waiting to happen and I've often heard others say the same thing about certain dead pilots, even friends. I have said it myself about a friend who died in a crash. He was doing something stupid and he got killed. Tom Wolfe's book; 'The Right Stuff' addresses that theme in his own colourful way. It's almost a defence mechanism. 'He failed I wouldn't have'. Only a few weeks ago a pilot I know was killed in a crash with another pilot. As the facts of the crash got out, the muttering started. The implication that he screwed up is on the agenda. One Instructor and a colleague of his said to me that it is very hard to get yourself killed in a light aircraft on a calm sunny day.

Having said that I think Golfer is being a little unfair to the pilot. It does look like engine failure and perhaps he had nowhere to go and stalled in. As we all know loss of power after take off is critical, particularly in a fast jet. Sometimes you can everything right and still die. It happens.

I'm not quite sure at the FAA's rationale on banning live ejection seats. The Brits allow them and surely they are often the most conservative. I suppose there might be a feeling that it would lead to pilots ejecting willy nilly and dumping jets into suburbs full of kids. But it does mean a death sentence for the pilot when those old blowjobs lose power.

No doubt the facts will out in due course.

68Hawk · « **Reply #43 on:** July 17, 2006, 04:41:49 PM »

Sounds kind of like what happened to Bong.

I'm more than willing to give benefit of the doubt and say that the pilot was probably staying with his aircraft in an attempt to stear it away from civilian areas. May he rest in peace! My heart goes out to the pilot, his family and to everyone else affected by this tradgedy.

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #44 on:** July 17, 2006, 04:42:24 PM »

No, ejection seats are very dangerous. Not when flying, they save your life. But its other people who get killed. You always hear stories about Air Force maintainers that have been killed when they inadvertantly launch the seat. And of course some civilians have been killed playing around on ex Soviet aircraft. Usually it just smashes the person on the hangar ceiling.