Quad City Airshow Crash

[HU&W]

http://wqad.com/2012...-city-air-show/

[sky_king]

Yikes. Its tough to see a fellow aviator go down like that.

I see they continued the airshow the next day out of respect. I wonder what they did during the L-39 section of the show.

[HuggyU2]

The Hoppers invited me to their BBQ, and they were great folks.

Quite a group of characters, too.

I wonder what they did during the L-39 section of the show.

What exactly does that comment mean?

Edited September 2, 2012 by Huggyu2

[Royal]

What exactly does that comment mean?

I'm thinking he's asking what they did in tribute.

[Prozac]

I assume ejection seats are disarmed/inert? Sorry to see a guy go down like that.

[sky_king]

What exactly does that comment mean?

Uh, it means exactly what I said. I wonder what the air show did with the block of time in which the L-39s were to perform during the next day's scheduled event.

For that 10-15 minutes, did they: not fly/moment of silence, push everything to the left, two ship of the other L-39s in tribute, pie eating contest...

I know my comment was confusing because I was talking in past tense for something that was yet to happen.

[StoleIt]

Am I seeing things or did 3 merge into lead?

And I thought L-39's had seats?

[Muscle2002]

I assume ejection seats are disarmed/inert? Sorry to see a guy go down like that.

I don't think they have to be disarmed. The CM-170 and MiG-15 I flew in both had operating ejection seats. While these are obviously different aircraft, all fit in the Experimental category, so they should fall under the same FAR provisions.

According to the owner, the only thing he had to disarm was the capability to jettison the wing external tanks.

More importantly, here's a toast to the folks involved.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Muscle2002

[Notch]

I got a chance to meet these guys last year at battle creek. Good bunch of guys. They threw a BBQ for all of the military guys (blue angels included). They had 4 or 5 of the L-39's on the ramp near the hangar. We got to mess around with them for a bit. Some of the jets did have the seats operational but others did not. I can't recall if his did or not.

[LJDRVR]

My understanding of the L-39 is that most have the seats deactivated. So sorry to see this happen.

[contraildash]

It was Glenn Smith on the team. Godspeed.

HopperFlight Team Page

[HuggyU2]

Ejection seats: whether they have them or not is a bit complex. It has nothing to do with the type. It has everything to do with the FAA.

Prior to 9 July 1993, aircraft registered for experimental exhibition or air racing had very few restrictions on them, and they were allowed to maintain their original restriction after that date.

Aircraft registered after that date had a moratorium place on ejections seats.

Since then, a lot has happened to allow many of these aircraft to have their restrictions eased.

I don't know all of the nuances... and there are many,... but from the legal view, it has a lot to do whether it is a "pre-moratorium aircraft" or not.

Additionally, I know of plenty of jet owners that don't want seats in their aircraft. They do not feel the cost warrants it, and are confident the can land it in most situations... or have enough time to do a manual bailout.

Am I seeing things or did 3 merge into lead?

Looks like they were doing their Switchblade break (or something like that). In any case, it was planned to have the aircraft pull and cross. Mechanical? G-LOC? Who knows? We'll find out more when the NTSB gets to work.

Uh, it means exactly what I said.

I know my comment was confusing...

Uh,... ok. Got it.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Huggyu2

[Hacker]

Am I seeing things or did 3 merge into lead?

You can hear at the beginning of that video, the narrator say, "....signature switch break-up," meaning some kind of cross-over maneuver to split up. I'd guess it probably involves the left wing going right and the right wing going left. Lots of aerobatics teams do that type of maneuver and looks impressive from skull-on.

[Guest]

Bummer.

Great guys. Dan Sullivan is a friend of mine and I've always asked him if he felt like it was worth it to do this. Never a moment of doubt from him. Dan has offered to take me up several times and I have always said I would go the day after he put a real ejection seat in that thing. Same for the MiG-17 he has in his hanger.

Barney and Master flew with them a couple years ago at Oshkosh. They're all very generous.

[Rokke]

It was Glenn Smith on the team. Godspeed.

HopperFlight Team Page

This mishap and any potential cause aside...the resumes of those guys just isn't really impressive. Imagine putting some of your younger wingmen and flightleads into older jets bought from a foreign country and telling them to put on a formation aerobatics display. Reminds me of the time I watched over 100 Mooney's (the aircraft, not the bald beggers) take off from an airport in Wisconsin for a mass flyby at Oshkosh. There's an art and a science to launching a mass gaggle of aircraft from a single airfield. People who don't do it for a profession probably shouldn't try it. Same goes for formation aerobatics.

[Hacker]

the resumes of those guys just isn't really impressive. Imagine putting some of your younger wingmen and flightleads into older jets bought from a foreign country and telling them to put on a formation aerobatics display.

Without throwing spears at anyone in particular, this is the crux of the issue with many warbird owners and operators. Because of the costs of owning and operating, the pool of people involved seems to get more and more focused on "rich guys" every year. So, we're generally talking about corporate executives and business owners, who have varied personalities and backgrounds, but very rarely do they have a background in professional aviation (or, more specifically, military aviation).

Add to that the fact that there are not a whole lot of military pilots who have much of an interest in civilian aviation (who can mentor these civilian pilots in the ways of high performance jet aviation), and you get the state of business as we see it.

I have an acquaintance who is a civilian-trained pilot who performs a lot of warbird and jet training, and he described the state of airmanship and discipline in the civilian warbird community as "universally terrible".

This is not to say that there's something magical about being a military-trained pilot that endows you with some sort of superhuman skills and discipline that mortal civilians cannot ever attain -- of course that is not true. But, as we all know, the military raises aviators to fit a particular mold and have particular attitudes about flying that just also happens to marry up to high performance jet flying very well. Civilian training runs the gamut from terrible to excellent with zero consistency, and anyone with enough money can eventually buy their way into ratings and airplanes.

In addition, there is not one central group that oversees the standards these civilian pilots are flying to: there's no SOF or Ops Sup or DO or CC or OG that is waiting to hammer anyone who strays outside the lines that Big Blue has for how you fly his airplanes. There are some voluntary groups, like NATA or FAST or EAA Warbirds of America or ICAS, etc, who have self-imposed standards and try to police themselves, but ultimately that policing and participation is voluntary. Guys can take their toys and go home if they don't like how they're being treated.

That's the fundamental difference.

[HuggyU2]

...the resumes of those guys just isn't really impressive.

People who don't do it for a profession probably shouldn't try it.

Same goes for formation aerobatics.

Use caution in lumping everyone into your mold of how their resumes should look. What is sounds like is you believe they should all be military trained to be exceptionally qualified. If that's the case, I would disagree with you.

I'm sure that is not your intent, however, I do want to point out there are many, many exceptional pilots out there that don't have military backgrounds, and that fly formation, low level, and aerobatics. In fact, they do all 3 of those at the same time: Bill Stein, and Team Rocket to name a couple.

Hacker is also spot on in that there are folks out there that appear to think that once they own the airplane, all the gold dust will rub off on them, and they will be bullet proof and amazing.

[Rokke]

Use caution in lumping everyone into your mold of how their resumes should look. What is sounds like is you believe they should all be military trained to be exceptionally qualified. If that's the case, I would disagree with you.

I don't care if it's military or civilian time, which is why I didn't say so. What I was trying to key on was the professional aspect of engaging in something as complex and high threat as flying within 5 feet of another high performance aircraft engaged in advanced maneuvers at low altitude. Some activities can be a hobby. Some require a lot more focus. I would lump jet aircraft aerobatic demonstrations into the professional side.

And let me just re-emphasize that I'm not trying to imply anything regarding this latest incident. Could have been a meteor strike for all we know. I'm simply making a broader statement about the proficiency level required to engage in the kind of flying they engage in.

[Hacker]

the proficiency level required

This is the second half of the equation -- proficiency. We all know that flying is a perishable skill, and the more high performance the task, the easier it is to lose proficiency in executing that task.

I mentioned that many of these guys are not "professional pilots" for a reason: they have day jobs, and usually high-powered and high-pressure day jobs. They don't think about and execute flying day in and day out like a professional pilot does. There's a reason the USAF has RAP and "beans" and all the other required continuation training events during the course of the year, and proficiency is the answer (weather RAP is an effective means of doing that is another discussion all together...I mean, do you really want the old attached dude who is alternating between CMR and non-CMR every month on your wing on night 1 of the war?). Civilian guys don't have RAP, nor any other mandatory program to keep them sharp on the non-FAA required items. It is entirely up to their own conscience how much they dedicate to staying sharp, and there are certainly a lot of pilots who don't recognize how much and how quickly they can lose proficiency.

Again, not a spear at non-military dudes -- I know plenty of civilian guys who are great sticks and make sure they spend the time and money required to remain proficient. But, unfortunately, there are also many who do not.

[HuggyU2]

I mean, do you really want the old attached dude who is alternating between CMR and non-CMR every month on your wing...?

You just had to go there, now didn't you?

[Guest]

...I mean, do you really want the old attached dude who is alternating between CMR and non-CMR every month on your wing on night 1 of the war?).

It depends.

[Hacker]

It depends.

Of course it depends. Hell, I've been that guy.

That being said, even high-time crusty experts who have been away from flying for even a little bit lose their proficiency quickly, and that was my point.

[Guest]

Hey, you asked.

[Vetter]

The more important question...is the non-CMR guy a patch? If he is, then I want him on my wing every single time.

[BQZip01]

I mean, do you really want the old attached dude who is alternating between CMR and non-CMR every month on your wing on night 1 of the war?

I'll take the experienced guy over the non-experienced guy who is also alternating between CMR and non-CMR every month because our CMR qualifications are completely jacked up...