Status
Not open for further replies.
Just a quick note. The NTSB report did not say the pilot died while performing low-level aerobatics. The NTSB only said the accident happened while maneuvering. In fact, the report only noted that WITNESSES claimed he was doing low-level aerobatics.

An NTSB preliminary report is not a finding of anything except the facts as known at the time the paperwork is filed that says there was an accident. And the facts known are 1) The airplane crashed 2) two people died 3) Witnesses had something to say.

But, as I noted in another thread in which most authorities said they had not talked to witnesses directly, we don't know the reliability of the witnesses. We also don't know whether they were doing aerobatics, or whether there was a problem with the machine that rendered control of it impossible.

I'm guessing that an out of control airplane can look a lot like aerobatics.

Let's give this guy a break and not call him stupid quite yet. For all we know, he was making a heroic attempt to save the flight in the face of impossible odds.
 
N395V said:
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
Teddy Roosevelt
Click to expand...

Wonderful words. There is, however, a thin line between adventure and stupid, between knowing limits and not knowing them.

These individuals; the crocodile guy being done in by a sting lay, the 3 Mt. Hood climbers as they froze to death, the pilot as his airplane is disassembled in a thunderstorm - all probably wished they had made a different decision about the time it became apparent this was it. I doubt any were happy with the outcome of their "adventure".

Many aviation fatalities are the result of poor decisions, not the pursuit of glorious adventure. I believe the Good Lord frowns on stupid. Well thought out adventure yes, but stupid is a divine no-no. This discussion should be about making good decisions, not who is a hero, dead or alive, blindly pushing an envelope.

I do not fear flight - but do fear the outcome of a dumb decision.

dd
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick6a
A coward can sit in his house and criticize a pilot for flying into the mountain in fog, but I would rather by far, die on a mountainside than in bed. What kind of man would live where there is no daring? And is life so dear that we should blame men for dying in adventure? Is there a better way to die?

Charles Lindbergh


N395V said:
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."


Teddy Roosevelt
Click to expand...


"I'd rather die while I'm living, than live while I'm dead".

Jimmy Buffett

Mike
 
Captain Avgas said:
I tend to suspect that pilots who habitually express concern about everybody else's safety are in fact really anxious about their own safety.

Often they're older pilots with relatively few hours. Because they feel apprehensive about their own skills and safety they project their concern on to others.
Click to expand...

Some of us may be concerned about being taken out by another flying fool doing something stupid and illegal. This has nearly happened to me a couple of times. Rest assured that I'll blow the whistle the next time. The sad thing about this Rocket incident was the young kid dying as somebody mentioned previously.

By all means do enjoy flying in your own way but don't risk others in your own plane or other planes nearby.

We all weigh our risks when flying (or eating as some point out) and do what we feel is safely within that comfort zone. To some this means aerobatics and formation flying. To others it means no night flying or maybe not flying in gusty conditions etc. Experienced pilots are certainly not always safer than low time pilots and even the most experienced can make fatal errors in judgement. Let's remember Scott Crossfield here as a for instance. Even the great Chuck Yeager lost control of a T6 a few years back- fortunately no injuries there.

Overconfidence and complacency rather than a lack of skills usually bites the high timer.

I'd submit that older pilots with either low or high time have evolved and matured a bit more through experience in life and apply that to their outlook on flying. I don't like to hear of anyone being killed but it is a better way to go I suppose than many other ways.

I find it interesting that the ex leader of the RCAF Golden Hawks demo team flying F86s, renown for ultra low flying and an incredible display that would make the Blue Angels guys proud, does not fly at night in his single engined Swift. While 500 knots at less than 10 (or 6!) feet is acceptable, I suppose he realizes that an engine failure at night over unlit terrain for instance would likely be fatal. To others, the likelihood of an engine failure is so remote that they don't see this as a big risk but would find the 500 knot pass at 10 feet crazy.

So we are all different. The message in this post is maybe to think a bit more about what we do and to not endanger others. It might save a few of us in years to come.
 
OldAndBold said:
Airguy: "Great - so we've built an airplane that will lock out pilot commands during an uncommanded turbulence upset. That's just the airplane I want to fly on, you betcha. What happens when the gyro equipment used to determine that absolute 67 degree bank goes haywire and starts drifting? Is it safe then? As safe as direct aileron control with a competent live warm human at the other end?"

Probably way safer.

I didn't engineer the Airbus. But I wish I had been on the team - it is a magnificent airplane.

I am sure that the tradeoff studies were made between (for example) the risks of a highly qualified airline captain taking control of the airplane and sending it into a disasterous situation versus the danger of all three of the triple redundant flight control systems failing at the same time.

And, I am sure that when they did the design engineering of that airplane that the most highly qualified airline captains were included in the design and specification. The design of the airplane would have had to been driven by airline/pilot needs.
Click to expand...

I call bulls**t. I am an airline captain, and there are situations that come up that can not be engineered into the airplane. Our training syllabus has a section dealing specifically with all the levels of automation. In a nutshell, it says to disengage all the fancy stuff and FLY THE **** AIRPLANE!

Airlines hire PILOTS, not systems monitors. If the pilot can't override the airplane, then he/she is just that...a monitor! You guys have tried to engineer human error out, but replaced it with something that can be just as bad.

Oops, thread drift. Sorry guys. Like others have said, life is not without risks. Build your RV. Enjoy it and the people you will meet. NEVER, EVER exceed your personal and/or your airplane's limits, and you will be OK. ;)
 
rv6ejguy said:
Some of us may be concerned about being taken out by another flying fool doing something stupid and illegal. This has nearly happened to me a couple of times. Rest assured that I'll blow the whistle the next time.
Click to expand...

If I was you I'd be considerably more worried about that Subaru engine you have up front than some-one else crashing into me. It just goes to show that the perception of risk is purely in the eyes of the beholder. :)
 
Captain Avgas said:
If I was you I'd be considerably more worried about that Subaru engine you have up front than some-one else crashing into me. It just goes to show that the perception of risk is purely in the eyes of the beholder. :)
Click to expand...

Absolutely. While I don't worry much about snapping crankshafts, I do have other supporting systems failures to consider which Lycoming drivers don't have. Similarly, many Lyco drivers would also consider my lengthy R&D flying risky- which as it turns out, has been.

Once your have experienced a near miss or two caused by boneheads, your appreciation for that risk increases!

I'd say that my experiences have made me less complacent and more cautious- probably good things. I still enjoy flying but I do run more what ifs through my head now and have reaction plans to emergencies stored in my head now.
 
I didn't say that!

Bob Collins said:
Just a quick note. The NTSB report did not say the pilot died while performing low-level aerobatics. The NTSB only said the accident happened while maneuvering. In fact, the report only noted that WITNESSES claimed he was doing low-level aerobatics.

An NTSB preliminary report is not a finding of anything except the facts as known at the time the paperwork is filed that says there was an accident. And the facts known are 1) The airplane crashed 2) two people died 3) Witnesses had something to say.

But, as I noted in another thread in which most authorities said they had not talked to witnesses directly, we don't know the reliability of the witnesses. We also don't know whether they were doing aerobatics, or whether there was a problem with the machine that rendered control of it impossible.

I'm guessing that an out of control airplane can look a lot like aerobatics.

Let's give this guy a break and not call him stupid quite yet. For all we know, he was making a heroic attempt to save the flight in the face of impossible odds.
Click to expand...


I never said or implied anything about this person other than it is sad that he is gone. Any mistakes he may have made are mistakes I can just as easily make.
 
I didn't say YOU did. But since the entire thread is taking place from a message with a link to the preliminary report on one particular accident, the implication certainly exists.
 
Again, I didn't engineer the Airbus, I just admire it.

BryanArd said:
I call bulls**t. I am an airline captain, and there are situations that come up that can not be engineered into the airplane. Our training syllabus has a section dealing specifically with all the levels of automation. In a nutshell, it says to disengage all the fancy stuff and FLY THE **** AIRPLANE! ...
Click to expand...

Now completely off topic.

For an avionics engineer I have had suprisingly little contacts with pilots over the years. Few regular engineers do in most large aerospace corporations. But I do know how the decisions about what get built get made - they just get made by someone other than me. That is part of the reason why I became a pilot - so I could understand the aviation domain better.

Can you "disengage all the fancy stuff" in an airbus? I am honestly curious - it is my understanding that it has a fully automated fly by wire system. The pilot is basically telling the airplane what trajectory to fly and the FMS and the FCS carry out most of the work in doing that. If all three control system (I think there are like three) "go out" I would think there would be no way to control the airplane. But the point is that the chances of all three failing at the same time are supposed to be in the one in a billion range. How would you control the airplane directly through that little side handle?

Again, I am not an airbus person. I just like big airplanes.
 
In an airbus, if you find yourself in a situation where it will take 2.6 g's to miss the terrain, and the aircraft has a g limit of 2.5, you are already dead; you just haven't reached the scene of the accident yet. There is no way to override the control laws.

In a fly-by-wire boeing in the same situation, you pull 2.6 g's, miss the terrain, and the airplane needs an inspection and probably an overhaul. The pilot will probably be in for some real trouble for getting into the situation, but at least the entire planeload of people is still alive.

French aircraft manufacturers tend to engineer their airplanes to "keep the pilot from messing with anything." When you expect the aircraft to be flown by a third world pilot with inadequate training, this may be a good approach. However, with competent, experienced crews, the airbus approach just means that if there is a problem in the system, the pilot can't fix it.

The engineering may be impressive, but these airplanes are something I prefer to avoid.
 
This whole Airbus discussion brings back childhood memories of visits to Disneyland. Sometimes my father (a "frugal" guy) would take my brothers and me over to the park to ride the monorail. Back in those days you could do this without having to buy an entry ticket. Anyway, the driver sat in a plexi bubble at the front and would make all sorts of "this is your pilot speaking" type announcements during the ride. One day I got to sit in the bubble with the "pilot" and was a bit disappointed when I saw that he pretty much just sat there in a fancy uniform. I saw no yoke, stick, throttle, pedals, nada. I'm sure that at some point airliners will be completely automated, but when that day comes I'm gonna stop calling the guy up front "pilot".

Further, I think you'd be hard pressed to find an RV builder/flyer who desires any type of fly-by-wire system. We choose this plane precisely because it gives the pilot all the control. If I want a screw-up proof G.A. plane, I'd probably just go with a trainer (152 maybe).
 
OldAndBold said:
Airguy: "Great - so we've built an airplane that will lock out pilot commands during an uncommanded turbulence upset. That's just the airplane I want to fly on, you betcha. What happens when the gyro equipment used to determine that absolute 67 degree bank goes haywire and starts drifting? Is it safe then? As safe as direct aileron control with a competent live warm human at the other end?"

Probably way safer.

I didn't engineer the Airbus. But I wish I had been on the team - it is a magnificent airplane.

I am sure that the tradeoff studies were made between (for example) the risks of a highly qualified airline captain taking control of the airplane and sending it into a disasterous situation versus the danger of all three of the triple redundant flight control systems failing at the same time.

And, I am sure that when they did the design engineering of that airplane that the most highly qualified airline captains were included in the design and specification. The design of the airplane would have had to been driven by airline/pilot needs.
Click to expand...


I stand on my statement. You keep being a driver, and I'll keep being a pilot, and hopefully we'll never meet in the same airspace. I'll never fly ANYTHING that has an electronic filter between me and the control surfaces. When I'm in the left seat, I want to be in control - not a computer, not a g-limiter, and certainly not some ground-bound "safety engineer". When the picture out the window differs from the page in the book, I'm the ultimate decision maker who has to take action, and I will take severe issue with anyone who tells me otherwise.
 
Last edited:
I am not even sure how the discussion got here. I don't think you understood me at all. But just for fun...

...the next time you need to go somewhere via airline, I assume you are going to check and see if the airliner in question is an airbus and if it is, you will either fly a different airline, wait several extra hours to avoid the airbus, pay a higher fare to fly on a different flight or just not fly at all?

Just curious...

BTW, I am a software engineer not a safety engineer. I just write the code that implements what the system engineers decide the customer's requirements are.
 
Last edited:
Yup - you got it. I'll put my faith (when required) in an ATP-trained and qualified pilot flying an airplane that allows that PILOT (not DRIVER) to take whatever action is needed - up to and including actions that may mean bending that airplane in the process of saving my butt as a passenger. If he can't take those actions, my butt is scrapped. If he does take those actions, my butt MAY be scrapped, and it may not. I'll take SOME chance over NO chance, any day.

No electro-controls for me, ever.
 
Last edited:
You do realize that Boeing aircraft also have a digital flight control system that is driven by a flight management system, right? Now, I don't know exactly how pilots choose to fly their airliners, but the general idea is that the FMS can take control and fly an optimized flight plan from about 400 feet AGL after takeoff all the way to flying it down the localizer at the other end. At least that is what the FMS on my desk at work can do. I can start it up, enter a company route, enter a few more parameters and press the TOGA button and it will fly the flight. And our FMSs have been in 737s for well over a decade or more. I have to say, I am not sure there is even a direct hydraulic connection between the control wheel and the flight surfaces (this is not the part of the system I work on). I'd be pleased if an airline pilot could fill me in here.

If you will "never fly ANYTHING that has an electronic filter between me and the control surfaces" then I am not sure how you would ever fly on any airliner.

I understand your desire that a highly qualified pilot be in control of the airliner. Believe me, they are. The whole point of cockpit automation is to reduce the flight crew's workload and simplify there decisionmaking. Do you really want you pilot to be fumbling for VOR frequencies and twsting OBS knobs or do you want him to let the computer take care of tracking the nearest VORDMEs while he keeps looking out for traffic?

???
 
OldAndBold said:
You do realize that Boeing aircraft also have a digital flight control system that is driven by a flight management system, right? Now, I don't know exactly how pilots choose to fly their airliners, but the general idea is that the FMS can take control and fly an optimized flight plan from about 400 feet AGL after takeoff all the way to flying it down the localizer at the other end. At least that is what the FMS on my desk at work can do. I can start it up, enter a company route, enter a few more parameters and press the TOGA button and it will fly the flight. And our FMSs have been in 737s for well over a decade or more. I have to say, I am not sure there is even a direct hydraulic connection between the control wheel and the flight surfaces (this is not the part of the system I work on). I'd be pleased if an airline pilot could fill me in here.

If you will "never fly ANYTHING that has an electronic filter between me and the control surfaces" then I am not sure how you would ever fly on any airliner.

I understand your desire that a highly qualified pilot be in control of the airliner. Believe me, they are. The whole point of cockpit automation is to reduce the flight crew's workload and simplify there decisionmaking. Do you really want you pilot to be fumbling for VOR frequencies and twsting OBS knobs or do you want him to let the computer take care of tracking the nearest VORDMEs while he keeps looking out for traffic?

???
Click to expand...

My point is made. I don't fly airlines very often at all for this reason. I'm not a control freak, but between people like you and the security ignoramuses at the TSA, it's simply not worth my time and effort to buy a ticket versus flying myself privately. When I pay someone to do something for me, I want to know for absolute sure, within a VERY high degree of certainty, that they not only have the KNOWLEDGE to do what I am asking them to do, but that they also have the ABILITY to do the thing I am asking them to do.

Again, I say to you - If you're that afraid to take a risk, then go home, crawl in bed, and never get out again. We'll both be safer that way.

And while we're at it - why don't you add a signature line so we all know who we're talking to here?
 
Last edited:
OldAndBold said:
You do realize that Boeing aircraft also have a digital flight control system that is driven by a flight management system, right? Now, I don't know exactly how pilots choose to fly their airliners, but the general idea is that the FMS can take control and fly an optimized flight plan from about 400 feet AGL after takeoff all the way to flying it down the localizer at the other end. At least that is what the FMS on my desk at work can do. I can start it up, enter a company route, enter a few more parameters and press the TOGA button and it will fly the flight. And our FMSs have been in 737s for well over a decade or more. I have to say, I am not sure there is even a direct hydraulic connection between the control wheel and the flight surfaces (this is not the part of the system I work on). I'd be pleased if an airline pilot could fill me in here.

If you will "never fly ANYTHING that has an electronic filter between me and the control surfaces" then I am not sure how you would ever fly on any airliner.

I understand your desire that a highly qualified pilot be in control of the airliner. Believe me, they are. The whole point of cockpit automation is to reduce the flight crew's workload and simplify there decisionmaking. Do you really want you pilot to be fumbling for VOR frequencies and twsting OBS knobs or do you want him to let the computer take care of tracking the nearest VORDMEs while he keeps looking out for traffic?

???
Click to expand...


Just to clarify, the 737, 747, 757, and 767 all have mechanical linkages connecting the control wheels and rudder pedals to hydraulic servos at the flight controls. The 777 is fly by wire, but with one big difference from an Airbus. On the 777, the pilot can feel what the airplane is doing to the flight controls even when the autopilot/FMS is controlling the airplane. If the autopilot deflects an aileron, the wheel in the cockpit will move. On an Airbus, the control sticks and throttles do not move at all when the plane is on autopilot. The "limits" on the 777 can be exceeded by the pilot, the plane will warn him that a limit is being exceeded, but the pilot still has ultimate control. Note that several Airbus crashes have occured due to the airplane doing something that wasn't readily apparent to the flight crew.
I'm not an airline pilot, but I've worked in airline maintenance for 28 years, including Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, and Airbus aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Dear OldAndBold,

You really need to find out some more about how pilots actually fly airliners before you make sweeping statements about how automation systems work in the real world.

Just for background, I have a degree in aerospace engineering and have been an airline captain for over 20 years. The first airliners I flew had all steam gages and no automation. My current airplane has a full glass panel with an FMS which will do everything but your income taxes.

The more automation the airplane has, the LESS the pilots look out the windows. It is all very well to say that automation allows the pilots more time for traffic vigilence, but it also takes them out of the loop, so they tend to pay more attention to managing the aircraft systems and less to flying the aircraft.

A small number of the pilots I fly with use the automation just the way you describe: they take off, turn on the autopilot and let the airplane do everything right up to the landing. These pilots often fail their periodic checkrides simply because their flying skills become so weak they cannot control the airplane in an emergency.

The best pilots I fly with use the automation just enough to help them during high workload and boring segments of the flight. They hand fly the airplane up to fairly high altitude, use the autopilot for cruise, and then hand fly the approach and landing. These people stay in the loop, maintain good situational awareness, and would have complete command of the aircraft in an emergency.

The point of this whole dissertation is that when there were fewer automated systems, pilots had to stay on top of their game or there were bad consequences. Engineers tried to eliminate the bad consequences by taking more out of the hands of the pilots. This has two unfortunate results: first, some pilots do not pay as much attention to their flying as they should, and second, the engineers have created a whole new set of bad consequences. On some of these "advanced" airplanes, the new bad consequences are due to engineering problems, and the pilots cannot fix them (airbus, in my opinion). On the better "advanced" airplanes, the pilots still have some ways to override unintended engineering results (boeing).

And in answer to your question, I do go out of my way to avoid riding on airbus equipment.

Pat

P.S. Just to keep things in perspective, airline flying is so safe today that these discussions are a little misleading. The worst airliner is still much safer than a really good car.
 
OldAndBold said:
Now completely off topic.

For an avionics engineer I have had suprisingly little contacts with pilots over the years. Few regular engineers do in most large aerospace corporations. But I do know how the decisions about what get built get made - they just get made by someone other than me. That is part of the reason why I became a pilot - so I could understand the aviation domain better.

Can you "disengage all the fancy stuff" in an airbus? I am honestly curious - it is my understanding that it has a fully automated fly by wire system. The pilot is basically telling the airplane what trajectory to fly and the FMS and the FCS carry out most of the work in doing that. If all three control system (I think there are like three) "go out" I would think there would be no way to control the airplane. But the point is that the chances of all three failing at the same time are supposed to be in the one in a billion range. How would you control the airplane directly through that little side handle?
Again, I am not an airbus person. I just like big airplanes.
Click to expand...

First bold...you are correct. Second bold...you won't. That's what I, and several others, have been trying to say.

Getting back to the original topic...Aerobatics/formation flying is fun. They make one a better pilot. They have to be approached with the right ATTITUDE! Poor, or no training, lack of planning, lack of communication, disregard for FAR's, etc. can lead to an accident. That has NOTHING to do with the airplane, and EVERYTHING to do with the guy/gal flying it.

About 2 years ago, my house was almost hit by a PA-160. The VFR Private Pilot was trying to shoot an ILS, at night, in marginal VFR. He crashed 1 mile from the end of the runway, and was killed. Is he any less dead than the guy doing low level acro in his RV? Of course you know the answer to that ;) . He, as well as some RV pilots, made bad decisions. That is sad.

If you don't feel comfortable doing that type of flying, then don't do it. Know your limits, and don't go beyond them. But please don't say that "not one" is qualified to do it. There are plenty of people on this message board who are...and they know the risks...and they accept them.
 
I think it is safe to say that if he had not been performing aerobatics he'd be alive today
Click to expand...
gentle but firm tone of voice...so as not to be misconstrued as a flame:

You keep missing a critical point that others have brought up several times, and in continuing to do so, you are doing many skilled, properly trained aviators a disservice. More importantly, I believe you are increasing the danger of flight for yourself. You are refusing to think beyond broad categorizations of risk and are making blanket statements that while true, demonstrate that you are not making accurate risk assessments. This statement you've made and I quoted above cuts right at the heart of it.

What you have said is a true statement, but it is not the most important or relevant true statement we could make in this case. Which of the following is the most important if we want to understand the true cause and avoid it in the future?:

1.) The pilot would be alive today if he were not performing aerobatics
2.) The pilot would be alive today if he had never learned to fly
3.) The pilot would be alive today if he were not performing a loop at low altitude
4.) The pilot would be alive today if he had exercised better judgement

All of these statements are true, but only one of them is specific enough to be meaningful, and from it all other understanding must fall out. He would be alive today if he were not performing a loop at low altitude. Period. As many have stated, this is an extremely dangerous maneuver with no margin for error, nor path for escape. He either was improperly skilled for such a maneuver or had miscalculated the altitude requirements. The root cause could have been inadequate acro training, improper assessment of his own skills, or simply setting the altimeter wrong before he left the ground, but the point is it is not enough to declare that acrobatics killed him. You will need to understand the principles of risk assessment and proper attribution of root causes for accidents to make accurate assessments of your own skills and weigh relative risks in the future. To do so is the very essence of airmanship, and a failure to do so is a terrible dereliction of your duty to yourself and others as an airman.

Think past the superficial and know the risks. You've taken a great step by analyzing the NTSB reports at a high level. Now take the next step and learn the finer details of what they have to tell you in the context of the specific activity. Only then will you be able to effectively manage risks and give yourself the best odds of safety in aviation.

Dave
 
Last edited:
the_other_dougreeves said:
I recommend Jim Gray at Amelia Reed. They have plenty of 150Hp Citabrias and Super Decathalons to choose from.
Click to expand...

You must mean Dave Gray. I did a bunch of acro training with Dave. He's really a great guy to train with. Len is great too. I'd fly with both...you'll learn a LOT from either.
 
absolutes

some people think in absolute's when they dont understand others actions. this just isnt applicable in every day life. they can be totally ignorant of a situation and get to the root cause ((what THEYcan eliminate( plane, guns, cars, boats,)) and say well he would be alive if we didnt have planes, guns, cars, boats, etc etc. if old and bold says i wont do this then guess what? he wont die doing it. but beware, as experience and comfort levels grow you may find yourself pushing the edge a couple of years down the road. and when you do will you have the courage to say uh guys i cant do that.. of course you can easily say that now but group dynamics make people do stupid stuff. just have the dicipline to stick to your limitations and try not to expect everyone else to live by what keeps you safe.
 
Last edited:
Another quote to (hopefully) end this tirade...

As spoken by another great philosopher: Clint Eastwood (Outlaw Josey Wales, Dirty Harry, one of em...???)

"A man's gotta know his limitations"

Jj
Loving and Flying Formation, Aerobatics, and Low Level the last 21 years/5600 hours (Glad no one told me NO ONE was qualified!!)
RV-4 Fastback builder
RV-6 owner
YAK 50 owner
OV-10 flyer
F-4 phlyer
F-117 flyer
T-38 flyer
 
David Johnson said:
Which of the following is the most important if we want to understand the true cause and avoid it in the future?:

1.) The pilot would be alive today if he were not performing aerobatics
2.) The pilot would be alive today if he had never learned to fly
3.) The pilot would be alive today if he were not performing a loop at low altitude
4.) The pilot would be alive today if he had exercised better judgement

All of these statements are true, but only one of them is specific enough to be meaningful, and from it all other understanding must fall out.
Click to expand...

Very well said, Dave. I'll go even one better though:

5.) the pilot would be alive today if he had not screwed up a loop at low altitude.

All the others don't matter if he had got it right.

Also, to OldBold, go back and reconsider your original post by substituting "fly his own airplane" into all the places where you say "fly acro" or "fly formation". All the same points apply about unnecessary risk, etc.
 
Clints the man

Jetj01 said:
As spoken by another great philosopher: Clint Eastwood (Outlaw Josey Wales, Dirty Harry, one of em...???)

"A man's gotta know his limitations"
Click to expand...
Hey Jj,
I think that was Dirty Harry in "Magnum Force"

The one I like from Josey Wales is : "You gonna pull those
pistols or whistle Dixie?"
 
risk/reward

I think that it is all to the individual's assesment of the risk reward ratio. For me low acrobatics and formation flying fall into a low-reward and high-risk category that I avoid.

I would rather land on a road than fly into a cloud without being prepared to do so.

However, someone who lives to formation fly or do low-level acrobatics may have a different assesment of the risk/reward ratio.

I support their right to lfy as they see fit.

Hans
 
jcoloccia said:
You must mean Dave Gray. I did a bunch of acro training with Dave. He's really a great guy to train with. Len is great too. I'd fly with both...you'll learn a LOT from either.
Click to expand...
My bad - Jim Grant is why I flew with.
 
Interesting thread.

I think that most of my thoughts have been covered here in one fashion or another. I guess I am kind of middle of the road. I enjoy yanking and banking... and look forward to learning loops and rolls at high altitude. All with proper training and ALTITUDE.

However - the one thought that does cross my mind every time I read about accidents - especially pilot error involved... is what does this do to our insurance rates? If folks do lots of stupid things in RV's such as low level acro... leading to crashes... eventually the actuarial studies will tell the insurance companies to raise their rates. And then we ALL pay for someones stupidity - I mean "personal choices". All because we fly the same type of plane.

Also - I must stress that these comments are made in general - and not specifically regarding the crash that started this thread. I think that until all the reports are due - it would be a disservice and disrespectful to address that accident in specifics.
 
Accidents in general

Reading accident reports make me think about my own flying. I always think to myself:

Could this have happened to me?
What were the conditions that led this (usually) experienced, skilled pilot to end up dead?
What can I do to avoid this outcome given the same conditions?

My goal is to learn from other people's mistakes, since I don't believe I'll have the time to make them all myself.
 
JoeG said:
It started one day in a meeting when a software engineer said "Show me in the spec where it says the system can't catch on fire!"
Click to expand...

As software/systems/controls engineer, and now engineering manager, I can tell you exactly why we've learned to ask questions like this. It's because I've personally smoked/melted/burned or otherwise thermally destroyed countless systems during development and the response from hardware folk is always the same: "Well, no where in the spec does it say anything about heat dissapation."

Just another point of view. :D It's just as well, though. My attitude is if you're not breaking things, you're probably not making much forward progress either.
 
Maybe the guy had a heart attack on the down side of the loop and would have been dead whether he was flying or not! Maybe if he wasn't flying but driving with his passenger down the road and had his heart attack. But instead of just plowing into the ground, he crossed the center line on a highway and took out a school bus full of kids! I read the entire, not just RV, prelim reports for 2006 and some of them we will never know what happened. Pilot error, so they say. Fly smart but have fun doing it. I don't have my IFR ticket but I like flying in IMC with an instructor. I think it is fun and challenging. Some people don't like. If you want to fly like an idiot leave a suicide note behind so our insurances rate won't go up when you crash and burn! This post has a life of its own! Fly smart, Fly fun and Fly til you die(hopefully by natural causes!)
 
Please Keep it Civil Folks

Folks, it is Christmas. Don't you think this is getting a little old?

This Thread has long since exposed most of the relevant facts, and now is nothing more than a bunch of rants. People are calling each other names. People are calling each other names FOR calling each other names.

Personally, I think this furball has run it's course, and I think it is time to "Knock it Off".

I don't mean to ruin anybody's fun, but go spend some family time....

Cheers to all on both sides!

Paul
 
My last comments. Really.

All -

OK, obviously I didn't make any friends or positively impress anyone here. To any I have offended, I am sorry I offended you. But I by and large do stand behind all that I have written. I do wish I could have avoided a few comments which were not taken as I might have hoped they be taken. In any event, it was not my intent to irritate or offend. A few brief responses to a few and I will be done.

Rodrv6 - thanks for the info. My realm of airliner knowledge largely stops at the next system away from either the flight displays or the FMS. I by and large do not know what the mechanical connections are between the systems. I know what I *could* make an airplane do if I had the opportunity to design the whole system, but how it is actually done is usually different. Again, thanks for the info.

4Kilo - As I said, I like most of my colleagues get very little (almost no) contact with the actual pilots who fly our products. Most are not pilots themselves and have little training or experience with aviation - they learn what they are supposed to make their software do my consulting the system engineers as the "system experts". I have been developing avionics software for almost twenty years now - I have worked on GR-4 Recon Pod, JSF prototype HUD, F-22 EW, L-159 HUD and CP, C-130J displays, 767-400 displays, F-14B HUD, 737-MMA FMS. However, and I mean this in a friendly way, it does seem that you have little understanding about how we engineers do our jobs as well. I would love to get into a jet simulator with someone like you in order to learn mroe about how the system is really used.

BryanArd - Yes, I have largely surmised how the system had to work from what I have to work with in software. I was phrasing my comments cautiously since I wasn't sure. I am pretty sure of what has to be going on inside the airplane but not positive. Thanks for the information.

David Johnson - I found your response particularily enlightening and well written. Thank you.

JoeG - My handle was always intended as a joke - exactly what I don't want to be. Anyone who has flown with me would know that I am trying to learn to fly as carefully as possible.

Steve Zicree - I have to say though your response is the one I agree with most, though I would like to tone down the adjectives a bit. Here is how I see it all: I partook in a message forum relating to RV building and operation. A message forum is the appropriate place to exchange ideas, information, to discuss issues and to share opinions. That is exactly what I have been doing and I have tried to be polite about it. If someone disagrees with my opinions, fine. My opinion goes about as far as my front door. I doubt the FAA is tomorrow going to ban aerobatic flight because they heard that John Babrick (Middle aged, getting old, definitely not bold and frankly a bit obese) has concluded that it is a stupid risk. So if you still feel recreational aerobatic flight is still something you want to do, that is your choice. The FAA won't stop you. I wish you well and sincerely hope you don't kill yourself doing it. I personally think it is a foolish risk.

rv8CH - "My goal is to learn from other people's mistakes, since I don't believe I'll have the time to make them all myself." AMEN BROTHER.

airguy - I don't know where to begin with your comments, so I won't.

Phyrcooler - "the one thought that does cross my mind every time I read about accidents - especially pilot error involved... is what does this do to our insurance rates?" Well, I have been getting life insurance lined up lately since I have learned that my company supplied life insurance will not protect my family if I die flying. I looked into the AOPA options. If you wish to apply for AOPA term life insurnace one of the first questions they ask on the form is "do you fly aerobatic or experimental airplanes?" Answer "yes" and your rates go up dramatically. Obviously the insurance companies think what we are doing is a significantly greater risk than even just flying light aircraft.

One final radical comment and I am done. What was the most offensive thing I wrote? Could it be, "I don't care if you are an ATP with 6 million hours of flying time and have turned down offers from NASA to fly the space shuttle - you are not qualified to safely perform <low level aerobatics>" ?

I stand by this one. Don't care if you are an airline captain or an ag pilot. You have obvious and measurable physical and mental limits. You do and will make mistakes. And if you make the wrong mistake at the wrong time you will kill yourself. Being capable of making such mistakes in a situation that can result in your instant death disqualifies you from being able to do this safely. I don't care if you have done it 3000 times correctly, the 3001st time, if done incorrectly, will be the last time you will ever do it.

Adequate Festivus to all.

John Babrick
N777XV
RV-7A (really, I am going to work on the empennage this week! And this time I mean it!)
 
Paul-

With warmest respect, I still see some very valid points being raised. Some folks will always get a little carried away, but I expect that in an online community. In just the last few posts I've learned just a little bit more about the relationships between "hardware" engineers and "software" engineers. While not germain to the original topic, it's still interesting reading to me at least, because it's something I also contend with every day.

Be free people! Speak your minds, Christmas or not. Heck, congress even sat in session on December 25th for several decades before the nation's holidays were sorted out.

Dave
 
Doug's take on all this....

Danny King likes to tell the story about when he first met me. I told him (quite seriously) that I didn't intend on doing any acrobatics and that I thought those that did formation were nuts (my exact words he likes to recount).


Fast forward 5 years. I love doing limited acro and I love doing formation. I swear I never saw it coming, but back while I was building I would have bet a thousand dollars I would never do a roll in my plane.


What happened? I found a spot to rent hangar space ten feet away from an ex-T-38 I.P. and down the taxiway from an ex- F-4/F-14 carrier qual?d Navy killer. I was never pressured to do formation, only told that if I ever had any questions I was free to ask. I asked. I read 'the book'. I asked more questions. I began to see that it was safe, actually VERY safe, if done by the book and with the right attitude. I was basically held by the hand and given Air Force and Navy formation training.


Here I am 5 years after first flight with a bona fide formation card, thousands of rolls under my belt (all above 2,500' however) and a healthy respect of the environment.


How have my personal limits changed since first flight back in '02:
  1. I don?t fly at night. I know I can legally and I have more instrumentation than a 777, but I just don't like doing in on one engine. I find I like to see my off-field landing options.
  2. I can't get enough formation. Having said that, I ONLY fly formation with people I know and fly with often. My personal limit keeps me from participating in the big OSH fly-overs. I know I could do it, I can legally do it, my formation skills are more than adequate to do it, but it wouldn't be fun for me. Too many variables for my comfort level. With my regular formation buds it's fun (and all business). First time visitors are usually shocked at the transformation between pre-briefing and during-briefing conversation and seriousness. It's all fun and games until 'attention to brief'. It works for us and underscores the seriousness of mistakes. Climbing out of the airplanes it?s all fun and games again.
  3. I don't do loops. I do rolls and other 2G maneuvers, but no loops. I've done several dozen over the years, but find I don't enjoy them much for some reason.
I would have never said this 5 years ago, but for me NOTHING in this world compares to the satisfaction I get turning off the runway after a mistake-free 20 minute 4-ship formation hop. Crisp signals, minimal radio calls, dead on spacing in the break. There for a few minutes I?m a Blue Angel/Thunderbird. The sight picture from the slot as #4 in a 30 degree turn as the morning sun swings around is religious for me. The feeling a microsecond before giving the kiss off signal over the field is something I wish I could bottle.

I never saw that coming, btw. Formation just presented itself to me over the course of a few years and I grew to understand that if done right, and with complete professionalism, isn't any more of a calculated risk than a regular, solo flight.


Who knows what I?ll think in another five years?



Merry Christmas all,



Doug
 
Last edited:
Lots of respect.........

Hi Mr. Babrick,
You're a real gentleman and I admire that in a man. Are you by any chance going to try and attend the RV fly-in at Lakeland, Fl in January? If so, I'd appreciate making your acquaintance.

Merry Christmas and may God bless,
 
John,

Don't go away mad - this is a forum for the exchange of ideas and information, run by and for adults. Sometimes people get cranky and words get twisted or taken out of context, but that should not stop anyone from voiceing their opinion. Having said that - when someone starts laying out absolutes, you are bound to get a differing opinion. When those absolutes start casting doubt upon others skills, abilities, or qualifications (especially coming from someone withOUT those same qualities) the differing opinions are likely to be loud and hot. You certainly have every right to fly your airplane as you see fit - as do others. You have every right to believe you are the only pilot in the world eminently qualified to fly safely. You even have the right (ain't it great living in America?) to cast doubt upon the qualifications (or even the pedigree!) of every other pilot in the world. You do NOT have the right, however, to reasonably expect to be able to do these things without getting some feedback from those people - and that's all that has happened here.

As for your parting shot, and I sincerely hope this is not the last time we hear from you...

OldAndBold said:
One final radical comment and I am done. What was the most offensive thing I wrote? Could it be, "I don't care if you are an ATP with 6 million hours of flying time and have turned down offers from NASA to fly the space shuttle - you are not qualified to safely perform <low level aerobatics>" ?

I stand by this one. Don't care if you are an airline captain or an ag pilot. You have obvious and measurable physical and mental limits. You do and will make mistakes. And if you make the wrong mistake at the wrong time you will kill yourself. Being capable of making such mistakes in a situation that can result in your instant death disqualifies you from being able to do this safely. I don't care if you have done it 3000 times correctly, the 3001st time, if done incorrectly, will be the last time you will ever do it.
Click to expand...

....Better sell all your cars, then. We all take this risk every day on the freeway. Worse than that, it's not just your mistake that can kill you - you're counting on literally thousands of other drivers every day to not kill you by making a similar mistake.

As Pierre said - I look forward to meeting you in person one day soon and discussing safety aspects and all manner of other topics with you. Free exchange of information and ideas is always a good thing.

Blue Skies and Merry Christmas!
 
DeltaRomeo said:
How have my personal limits changed since first flight back in '02:
  1. I don?t fly at night. I know I can legally and I have more instrumentation than a 777, but I just don't like doing in on one engine. I find I like to see my off-field landing options.
  2. I can't get enough formation. Having said that, I ONLY fly formation with people I know and fly with often.
  3. I don't do loops. I do rolls and other 2G maneuvers, but no loops. I've done several dozen over the years, but find I don't enjoy them much for some reason.
I would have never said this 5 years ago, but for me NOTHING in this world compares to the satisfaction I get turning off the runway after a mistake-free 20 minute 4-ship formation hop. Crisp signals, minimal radio calls, dead on spacing in the break. There for a few minutes I?m a Blue Angel/Thunderbird. The sight picture from the slot as #4 in a 30 degree turn as the morning sun swings around is religious for me. The feeling a microsecond before giving the kiss off signal over the field is something I wish I could bottle.
Click to expand...

I, like Doug, used to do things differently than I do today. Certain experiences have changed how I think and assess risks. My forced landing reinforced my decision not to fly at night. I wouldn't be here right now if that emergency had been at night.

I love flying formation. I always brief before and am careful who I participate with. I haven't done much but hope to do more in the future with friends.

I don't do aerobatics in my RV but have in other aircraft at altitude. It's awesome and I may take it up sometime again after some professional training.

I too, strive for that perfect "routine' flight, lock away those beautiful, memorable images that only we pilots get to see, cherish my photos of cool trips with friends and family and turn off the runway satisfied (or not) of a landing well done. I reflect on the new things I learned on this flight and how I could have done better.

When I wipe down the RV, I usually think of how lucky I am to have my health and the means to own and fly an RV. I look at her all shiny and think wow, I built this! Turn out the lights and drive home with a smile on my face. :)

Merry Christmas to all on VAF and safe flying to you all in 2007.
 
I looked into the AOPA options. If you wish to apply for AOPA term life insurnace one of the first questions they ask on the form is "do you fly aerobatic or experimental airplanes?" Answer "yes" and your rates go up dramatically.
Click to expand...

This is way off-topic, but I thought I'd mention it...

My buddy sells insurance and according to him (in a conversation several years ago on a topic other than aviation), after an insurance company issues a policy if the risks change you're still covered even if you didn't tell them of the new risks. For example, if you obtain your policy while you can honestly answer 'no' to the aerobatics/homebuilt questions but then engage in those activities later, you'd be covered.

Don't take it from me - read the fine print, ask an agent & read your state's insurance code.

Happy RamaHanuKwanzmas, everyone!

(and Merry Christmas, too...)
 
DeltaRomeo said:

How have my personal limits changed since first flight back in '02:

I don?t fly at night. I know I can legally and I have more instrumentation than a 777, but I just don't like doing in on one engine. I find I like to see my off-field landing options.
Click to expand...

Wow Doug, I though I was the only one that felt this way!!!! When I started flying back in 2000, probably 30% or better of my flying was at night. However, when I walked away unscathed from a daytime engine-out forced landing that all changed. I just never had the same feeling of comfort flying at night again. I don't belittle those who fly single engine at night (I'm actuall envious of them), but the comfort level just isn't there for me anymore. If I'm forced to land again I want to see exactly where I'm going down. It's nice to know that there is at least one other pilot who feels this way. ;)

Haven't done any formation flying yet, but would be interested in learning from an expert. I'm not much on aerobatics, but do enjoy the occasional aileron roll in my RV.
 
I don't fly at night in rentals - simply because I don't have the warm-fuzzy about the maintenance status of the engine and I know they get run hard. I would like to believe that will change with my own aircraft with me being more in tune with every sound and being able to do close trend monitoring, oil sampling, etc etc. I know parts can suddenly break even in the best-maintained engines, but that is an across-the-spectrum risk that could happen in any aircraft. Any failure that would be pre-indicated by increasing oil consumption, temperature/compression changes, or oil sample testing would be picked up by close trend monitoring.
 
Last edited:
CraigH@KRPH said:
Wow Doug, I though I was the only one that felt this way!!!! When I started flying back in 2000, probably 30% or better of my flying was at night. However, when I walked away unscathed from a daytime engine-out forced landing that all changed. I just never had the same feeling of comfort flying at night again.
Click to expand...

It just takes one day time engine out landing to cause an attitude adjustment about SEL night flight. The mindset is changed forever from not quite believing it could happen to knowing for sure it can happen. I know for sure I don't want to fly SEL at night.

(If it has to be, a flight plan from lit runway to lit runway, within gliding distance, unpegs the risk meter a little but the real hazard is still in the take off and landing no matter what the flight plan.)

Military guys always wear a parachute but who wants to bail out at night? Thats no fun and this is supposed to be fun. I night qualified myself a couple years ago and thought "this is stupid", I'm not going anywhere at night in this little airplane.

The bottom line; unless the government declares war and drafts RV pilots for night recon flights, I'm not doing it. :)

dd
 
Last edited:
David-aviator said:

The bottom line; unless the government declares war and drafts RV pilots for night recon flights, I'm not doing it. :)

dd
Click to expand...

David, after reading your posts concerning IFR, crash analysis and now night flying, you certainly sound like the ever conservative flyer. I say that in a good way....................but.......................

Night time, smooth air, no traffic, Ipod playing over the intercom, autopilot locked in............it doesn't get much better than that..........now back to your regular programming:)
 
No landing lights

The day I received my PPL (about the time the Earth was cooling :D ), my Flight Instructor gave me a night checkout in a Scuzzhawk. He went through an emergency landing check for nighttime and as we got lower, he said to wait until the last minute to turn on the landing lights....and, "If you don't like what you see, turn 'em back off!" :eek:

So yes, my single-engine night flights are somewhat limited to when I'm feeling really lucky..........also the reason I try and avoid flying dead center through the Okeefenokee swamp.... :cool:

Regards,
 
Night flight training anecdote...

OK, I said I wasn't going to comment anymore, but the topic has changed. Here is my PPL night training comment.

When it was time to do night cross countries I showed up at 8pm at the airport and did the preflight of the airplane as usual. I found the landing light was out. I pointed this out to the CFI, thinking we really ought to get the light replaced before we went. He disagreed, "Well this is a good opportunity to learn how to fly with the landing light out." Cheap b*****d didn't want to pay for a new light bulb or pass up a chance to get $60 flight lesson dollars that day!

There we were after landing at Sacarmento Executive, taxiing around in the dark, no lights, trying not to run off the pavement and trying not to hit anyone or anything including the gas pumps. What a bonehead. If you want me to learn what to do when the light goes out, turn a working light off in flight, but don't take off with inadequate equipment. Violation of an FAR or two, I suspect...

On another note, ballistic parachutes and night time engine outs - I'd like to get advice from those who have had engine outs. Suppose I had a BRS chute and was flying at night and had an engine out. What do you think is better - try to land in the dark or pull the chute at some altitude or something else??? I am sort of leaning toward the idea of glide down to like 2000 AGL and search for the best landing site and then decide whether to pull the chute. Opinions? I haven't had an engine out yet.

JCB
 
If you are over unlit terrain and the engine quits in an RV, you can pretty much say your prayers even if you are over flat ground. If I had the chute, I'd pull it and hope I didn't land in a big body of water.

And here I thought I was a big chicken not flying at night. I don't even have nav or landing lights on either RV so I'm never even tempted. Saves weight.

I agree with David, your first true to life engine failure and forced landing will probably change your perspective about night flying in single engined aircraft.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.