Airshows & Death

[LJDRVR]

I don't want to make this part of the thread discussing the loss of the fine gentleman who died during the L-39 portion of the Quad City airshow.

Here's my question(s):

It's 2012.

We no longer have to convince the public that our Hisso-powered JN-4's are safe for them to ride in at the state fair. While I'm all for freedom and entertainment and cool airplanes flying close to the ground, Hasn't this gone too far? Haven't too many good people died just so Ma and Pa Kettle can be entertained? Is one human life - or even an airframe - worth ten thousand snap rolls at ten feet? Is the military's funding in danger of being cut just because a couple of thousand people don't get to see a C-17 or a B-52 in flight?

I'm not married to to this idea and could be easily convinced with the right arguement. Perhaps the freedom to fly low level acro and share the joy of flight is worth the potential (And often inevitable) loss of life.

But I'm not so sure anymore.

Some guy losing his life so rednecks can watch his half-baked stunt of climbing from a biplane to a helicopter?

Fuck that.

Thoughts?

[LockheedFix]

Last time I checked, this was still 'Merica. No one has ever held a gun to some guy's head and said, "Go out there and do some low level aerobatics". At least not in this country. Give me liberty or give me death.

[DEVIL]

Last time I checked, this was still 'Merica. No one has ever held a gun to some guy's head and said, "Go out there and do some low level aerobatics". At least not in this country. Give me liberty or give me death or low level aero.

FIFY

[Buddy Spike]

The fact that you are even asking this question points to the further pussification of America.

Aviation is inherently dangerous. We take risks. Shit happens. We learn from it and move on, but there is no reason to pack it all up and quit just because "one life is too many."

Airshows still inspire future generations of aviators, and if it creates a spark in just one kid who will become the next Neil Armstrong and one day set foot on Mars or become the first Ace in World War IV, it's fucking worth it.

Death is mandatory. Being a pussy is not.

[LJDRVR]

Death is mandatory. Being a pussy is not.

That's the best arguement you can bring? Only real men risk their lives and anybody who questions the carnage is a pussy?

There is no learning from it and moving on in the airshow business. More than any other facet of aviation, it's the same needless accidents again and again. Over two decades of being beaten over the head with Bud Holland and there's still a large aircraft and crew lost practicing for an airshow, doing loaded up, high angle of bank turns close to the ground.

Neil Armstrong was insipred to become a pilot by building models, drawing airplanes and hanging out at the local airport.I think we in aviation aren't going to lose out on any earth-shattering talent if airshow flying is curtailed.

I'm a lot more inclined to believe the freedom arguement.

[guineapigfury]

Like the others said, aviation is inherently dangerous. Noone who has ever pulled back the stick or yoke and left the runway beneath them can seriously doubt airshows are worth doing. I think entertaining "Ma and Pa Kettle" is a side benefit to the "joy of flight". You're trolling, right?

[Swanee]

I argue that aviation is inherently safe- but unforgiving. What we do isn't any more dangerous than getting in a car, if we do it right. People die in car races- but the desire for some to climb into a high performance machine and take it to the edge to see who is better is greater than their fear of dying while they do it. The same can be said about those of us who strap airplanes to our backs and take to the skies.

It is not the job of the Government to rise us and save ourselves from ourselves.

[DEVIL]

I think the best argument is that of inspiring the future pilots for sure. Since 9/11 when kids can't go up to the cockpit on their commercial flights, airlines don't have the cash to give out maps and plastic wings, and there isn't a "Top Gun" (that Korean one might do the trick), there has to be some way to keep kids realizing that we have the best job in the damn world. Airshows have to be (no empirical evidence at all) the best way to plant that seed.

[HuggyU2]

LJDRVR,

First, I'm not a fan of bringing Bud Holland's name into the same conversation as professional airshow performers.

While Bud was an outstanding B-52, he was unable to get the training he needed to take his B-52 flying "to the next level". Why? Because the AF wouldn't allow that. So, he took it upon himself, violated flight discipline, and the rest is history. It was not an "airshow gone bad". It was a pilot who didn't know the limits, was overconfident, and violated the limits imposed on him. Same with the C-17 crash.

Professional airshow performers are just that: professional performers. And they have limits imposed on them. The hard-core aerobatic types almost always start out through the competitive aerobatic backgrounds. Very demanding and precise, and flown at much higher altitudes. But they build their chops there (usually).

When they move to the "airshow industry", they have to work with someone called an Aerobatic Competency Evaluator (ACE), who is a highly respected and experienced performer that has to validate their performance.

New performers start with an 800' deck. I cannot remember how many shows they must perform before they are eligible to move to the next level, which is 500'.

Then a bunch more shows, get evaluated and go to 250'... then a bunch more and get certified to the surface.

It's not a "I'll go thrash the airplane around the sky" type of setup. The performers enjoy it, and they don't want to see anyone hurt either. They do a great job of self-regulating their industry. The International Council of Air Shows (ICAS) has many resources and seminars that drive the safety point home. Accidents do nothing to help the industry out, and no one wants to see them happen. Even when no one gets hurt, it opens the door for criticism.

Neil Armstrong was a professional. What he did (test flying, space program) was far, far more dangerous than what is done in the airshow industry. Irrespective of what "inspired" him. Like the airshow professionals, he 'lived' to do what he did.

As was mentioned above,... and I'm sure everyone knows,... no one is forcing airshow performers to do stupid stuff. In the rare event where it does happen intentionally, it's almost always the performer taking what they think is a minimal increase in risk to make a better performance. And I've told performers that. More than once I've said "why bother getting so low? No one behind the first two rows of spectators can see you."

I just finished announcing a 2-day show today, and we had a performer who had done this same show 47 times,... and we had a performer in an Extra who was doing his very first airshow ever. And a few in between. Believe me, all of the performers were watching the new guy, and taking notes. They take it serious, and they want to do it well. And they certainly debriefed him after each performance.

Bottom line: I believe your representation of the problem being pilots in marginally safe JN-4's, and that the crowd is made up of folks that want to see that is completely wrong.

In fact, the number one attraction at any airshow (as proven by ICAS surveys that are given to spectators), are the military jet teams. And, as you know, they have a full-blown syllabus that gets them up to speed through a step-down program.

So... I guess I disagree with you.

Side note: as was pointed out on another thread, we've proved we can drive cars real fast now, and there's no need to spend your entire life training to go a little faster on a bicycle, while under the influence of steroids. Apparently, human nature enjoys the challenge.

[Hacker]

There certainly is a legitimate area of discussion with respect to flight discipline and motivations of a portion of the owners/operators of high performance civilian aircraft. There have been a number of fatal accidents over the last 5-10 years in warbirds and like aircraft that are directly attributable to pilot error, and were closely related to some risky behavior like low level aerobatics or other "non-point-A-to-point-B" flying.

I've related this story before, but at EAA's warbird operator forum at Oshkosh in 2010, the main topic was this safety trend. One of the CAF's flight safety guys stood up and noted that every single accident in the previous year had been pilot error, and that most of those accidents involved some questionable judgment. He compelled everyone in attendance to "take a long, hard look in the mirror" and figure out why that was. The implication being, of course, that the current batch of owners and pilots were engaging in some risky behavior and poor judgment. The additional factors being the widely differing training and experience levels of the operators, as well as some personality traits which fostered a culture where people were hesitant to comment honestly on other guys' behaviors. The discussion amongst the pilots showed that they knew it was an issue, although they differed widely on how to fix it.

The follow-up is that at this year's operator forum last month, the main presentation was about airmanship, judgment, flight discipline, and it got right to the point. I didn't attend the jet group's forum, but I understand that it, too, was very pointed in its discussion, having had a pretty poor year (mostly because of the acts of a couple of bad actors that have given everyone a bad name....reference the Santa Monica pier flyby a few years ago). Obviously not ALL of the owners and operators are a bunch of hot-dogs. In fact, I'd say the majority of them pretty firmly are not. But the aforementioned differing levels of training, experience, and proficiency are definitely a HUGE problem, and the personality issue is a cultural one which has evolved over years of the changing face of membership in the warbird club, and will take many years to evolve (back) into something that allows for the brutally honest criticism to be given and accepted in the hopes of safety and improvement.

That being said, Huggy shacked it with his description of the airshow performer world. It is a tight-knit group that loves what they do, and do it because they want to. They appear to do a good job of regulating themselves, as they know the FAA is always there and ready to start regulating things for them if they won't take care of things internally. Certainly there are differing levels of experience, skill, and commitment to disciplined and safe flying, but it seems to me as an outsider that the overall culture of the ICAS bunch is very safety oriented, as they know that is keystone to the airshow businesses future survival.

LJDRVR's question of, "is it worth it", is ultimately irrelevant. These airshows are largely put on and participated in by people who want to do it. A spectator's (or even a single potential participant's) personal risk/reward analysis really doesn't matter, since there are tons and tons of people for whom spending the time, effort, and money to train for, and participate in, the airshow circuit is worth it. Just as there are tons of people who are performing in IAC competitions all the time out of the public spotlight, just because they can. Same reason people are going to FAST clinics and learning how to fly formation, just because they can.

[LJDRVR]

Excellent! Thank you to those who responded with an articulate, well thought out arguement. (I was hoping Huggy would chime in.) As I said in my initial post - I'm not married to the idea. And you know something? You're absolutely right. Thanks for reminding me why and keeping me intellectually honest.

I still think bullshit acts like climbing from one airplane to the next should be chased out of town by organizers and performers.

[Fud]

I'm liking all of the quotes in this thread. The Mike Rowe quote is by far my favorite, and I'm posting an article by Malcolm Gladwell below.

http://gladwell.com/1996/1996_01_22_a_blowup.htm

Seeing an airshow now, especially the USAF Thunderbirds is pretty lame. I always enjoyed the USN Blue Angels simply because they flew lower the last time I saw them and they had a swagger the others did not. I think we live in a world where risk aversion has taken over, and it is evident in everything I read today. Chris Kyle, of American Sniper fame, complained about his Navy SEAL leadership being incapable of making a decision during battle. The same is true for ORM and how important some commanders make this. We should carefully weigh the risks, then be decisive.

[Buddy Spike]

That's the best arguement you can bring? Only real men risk their lives and anybody who questions the carnage is a pussy?

Pretty much.

There is no learning from it and moving on in the airshow business. More than any other facet of aviation, it's the same needless accidents again and again. Over two decades of being beaten over the head with Bud Holland and there's still a large aircraft and crew lost practicing for an airshow, doing loaded up, high angle of bank turns close to the ground.

You are wrong. There is learning in ever facet of aviation. Whether it's improving routines, safety, or emergency response. It is our nature as pilots to learn from accidents and get better.

We still have dudes land gear up, or at the wrong airport, or taking birds on takeoff and crashing, etc. etc. You can cry all day about "enough is enough" but it's not unique to airshows. People die. As long as humans pilot aircraft, this will be the case.

Neil Armstrong was insipred to become a pilot by building models, drawing airplanes and hanging out at the local airport.I think we in aviation aren't going to lose out on any earth-shattering talent if airshow flying is curtailed.

Let me know how hanging out at the local airport goes for kids these days. A lot of kids only get to see fighters and high performance aircraft up close and personal at airshows.

I'm a lot more inclined to believe the freedom arguement.

Who cares?

[BCan]

I'll throw one more point into the discussion...

The media sensationalizes airshow crashes...especially after Reno (which is not an airshow & doesn't have the same safety measures in place for spectators). There has not been a spectator fatality at a U.S. Airshow in the last 50 years.

Some perspective...the Army had 38 suicides in July...by my math that is more than one per day. Why don't we see a headline everyday about a Veteran's suicide? This weekend...1x crash at an airshow = front page news.

[Herkdrvr]

Is one human life - or even an airframe - worth ten thousand snap rolls at ten feet?

Short answer: Yes it is***.

***Given the risk of death/injury is low.

Is one human life worth High School Football Swimming Getting Married? Of course not. Yet all of these activities have an extremely low probability of death, so we happily undertake them.

Communities hosting airshows are the same communities shouldering the daily risk. Witness the F-18 into San Diego housing. Showcasing aircraft to the public not only inspires new generations of aviators (as previously mentioned) but also exposes the community to the operations they witness every day. Additional risk is negligible, and level of risk is directly proportional to airshow approvals.

Have a great Labor Day.

[pitts2112]

There is no learning from it and moving on in the airshow business.

That's an ill-informed statement.

Significant investigation and learning takes place after EVERY aviation accident, and airshows are no different. The European airshow regulations are very specific and (without knowing the details seem much more restrictive than US airshow regulations), not only as regards pilot and team qualifications but also the requirements of the performing environment and control of surrounding territory. Many of the current regulations came from recommendations out of the investigation report on the 1988 crash at Ramstein. That report led directly to significant lessons learned in not only the air operations but also ground operations, crowd area and control, emergency preparations, response, command and control structure, communications, hospital mass casualty response, and on-site triage. You can argue that some of the crowd-line distance restrictions are over the top, but that accident resulted in 67 fatalities and approximately 1,000 injured on the ground.

It is also true that, at least in the UK, part of the process for getting a display authorization involves the DA inspector evaluating the candidate's judgement and motivations for pursing a DA. If he comes across as a hot shot who just thinks showing off at an airshow is a cool way to get chicks, chances are he's not going to get his DA until that attitude changes demonstrably. Is it perfect? No. But it's much more involved than the average punter thinks.

To say that NO lessons are learned after accidents is simply untrue and underestimates the caliber of the people in the community.

The best piece of advice I ever got when pursuing a DA was from an experienced demonstration pilot. In an attempt to put performance pressure and pilot peer-pressure into context, he summed up the average airshow goer as just being an average joe, with little or no aviation knowledge, wanting a good day out. He said "The only thing you're competing with out there is an ice cream cone."

[Guest]

...it's fucking worth it.

Correct.

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

We tend to take our equipment for granted, but don't forget that the OWNERS (aka Ma and Pa taxpayer) almost never get to see it in action. Airshows give the Air Force a LOT of name recognition which may be more important than you think. As for civilian performers and their mishaps--- cost of business. I hate to sound callus and I mean every bit of respect to the dead, but civilian airshow performers are doing their job-- it pays the bills (or is a hobby). As such, the risk of a mishap falls squarely in the "occupational hazard" category.

[Spoo]

I'm liking all of the quotes in this thread. The Mike Rowe quote is by far my favorite...

I love his show 'Dirty Jobs'. I had no idea he was into aviation.

Sorry, that's the Famous Grouse talking. I'll delete this in the morning.

[Spur38]

Air Shows: We do them for ourselves, and the kids that get hooked like we did. Not Ma and Pa Kettle... they pay for it but we pay 'em back so they keep their ability to go to Walmart in peace...

[moosepileit]

Having done the airshow gig just a bit as both military and civilian, I'll throw in .02.

I suggest the competition aerobatics start if ever asked- The Int'l Aerobatic Club/IAC, part of the EAA, was a blast in the mid to late 90s. It is much smaller now.

You get picked apart by the judges and your peers for a little wooden plaque that costs at least $30k if you've bought a whole airplane yourself and trained enough.

Then, you move on to the FAA designees from the ICAS that give the low altitude waivers. It takes a real open schedule to fly enough shows per season to move down from 800' to 500' then to 300' and surface up, I think 10.

At this point, you can just make noise and smoke, or you can try and fly your most precise execution each outing.

Spent the last weekend shuttling kids through a static display while enjoying Sean Tucker's ever-progressing capes and demos.

The Canadian F-18 demo is pretty sick, they actually kick in a boot of rudder on their turns off the show line and it looks like most of a snap roll. It's away from the crowd, hope there is little risk of departing. The USN had a 2 seater demo, it was great, just a bit more tame. Still a nice contrast to the Blue Angels later.

Did the C-17 demo 4 times back when every wing had some crews in a Sq that were cert'd. It was a decent show if you kept it as a demo and didn't push the actual limits of the jet. Pretty good way to show the tax payers their $ at work, but as many times as not, if they ask a few questions while standing in line for an hour to see the cockpit, they may get most of the same impression.

Does it help make future pilots better than mom and dad having a good shot of the kid in the seat smiling w/ their hands on the controls at a static? Dunno.

Between my first airshow at age 6 or and first airline ride, I knew this was what I wanted to do, so I'm an outlyer in the statistics.

I'm not past both hands yet, but well into them counting folks I've flown with that we've lost from accidents. It is worth the reflection.

[TrainerModel]

No one is making anyone be and airshow pilot, stop bitching

[Tonka]

Did prohibition diminish drinking? You stop/reduce drag racing on the streets by providing a safe alternative on the track, drivers still die but I bet it is a lot less than if it was completely illegal to race. Folks are "generally" going to try and do it legally if there is an avenue. It sounds stupid, but take a 135 pilot and let him fly at 1000' over a stadium and he is the man for the day, tell him it is never possible and he tries it at 100' over the dessert drags a wingtip and cartwheels into a tent of civilians.

All pilots have some rebel spirit at some time in their lives, they need an outlet for it. Years of routine flying diminishes that outlet, trying to chase that original high. Unless you have the chance to switch airframes, go to WIC, TPS, then a flyby/airshow/demo might give you that release safely/legally. If not, then you get the "hold my beer, watch this sh|t" accident...

Also, just having that "demo" guy in the squadron might be enough for pilots to fly by the books to get a good reputation so that they can 1 day be "that guy". Some people need that pinnacle of the pyramid to aim for.

[Hodor]

I know if it wasn't for an airshow I wouldn't have been interested in flying. I can pin the moment when I wanted to fly, and it was a high speed pass by a B-1B at the Dallas Love Field airshow when I was little.

I recently got to fly into KOFF. Our T-6B was going to be a static display for our one day there, but it got rained out and we had to leave Sunday. So I didn't get to talk to people about planes and the USAF, but all the waves from the crowd when we taxied out were nice.

[rancormac]

I'm all for airshows and airshow pilots doing their thing, but another one just happened.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/244547/