No Wonder People Bash RV's

[Ron Lee]

Is a mid field crossing 500' above the traffic pattern...then at some point on the downwind side of the field tear drop entry into a 45 degree entry acceptable?

 

[Bob Axsom]

Folks, this is a matter of perception. Is such an act necessary under normal arrival procedures? I will submit that it is not. It really doesn't matter if it is legal or not.

Point being that the Cessna 182's or Cherokee's don't do such passes.

Actually they do, it is just the viewer's "perception" that they do not because their speed is somewhat limited. There is no question when you as a pilot witness one of these events and you hear that Lycoming wound up tight and the airplane is passing down the runway with no change in altitude, direction or velocity. It is locked in and you know a swooping climb out is coming at the far end of the runway even if it is only going 130 kts.

Bob Axsom

 

[RBD]

Does anyone remember the days when you could come to VAF and read respectfully submitted opinions, clearly stated facts, and honest, open discussions - without all the emotions, all the **** (which means that you can't think of a decent word), and all of the clearly "oh yeah, who's going to make me!!" bullying behavior?

I liked that - it was what set this place apart. We have now had a solid week of threads which has done nothing but divide us. We have posters with only a few posts (and no name in their profile, or signature in their posts) making broad acrimonious statements. Every thread other than one asking a specific building question devolves into an argument about behavior.

And no folks, the Moderators can't fix it without being called out as draconian.

If you want VAF to become a swamp, then keep it up. One thing I am absolutely certain of - you are not going to change a person's mind by arguing with them on the internet. You just poison the atmosphere for everyone.

(If you HAVE to post yet another vote for or against the Overhead break, why not do it over on that thread. This thread is about low passes!)

I remember, Paul. I also think that the negative threads of the past week or two have overshadowed the positive ones - the ones that SHOULD be receiving the most attention (first flight announcements, for example.) I suppose you're right that the moderators can't fix everything, and as the forum base continues to grow, we will likely see an increasing amount of the undesirable types of posts that you mentioned. As for threads specific to pilot behavior, I think it's important to note that EVERY topic (low passes, overhead breaks, formation in the pattern, low-level acro, radio etiquette, etc...) has already been beaten to death several times over (probably within the past year alone), and I, for one, see no point in even allowing them pop up again and again. It seems a bit ironic that when someone does ask a specific RV-related build question there is often an immediate reply of "use the search function." Yet when a topic like this comes up that involves emotion/opinion, it is allowed to fester to the point that it predictably degrades to the extent where it becomes an ugly exchange of personal attacks and must be locked....after five or six pages of a slow decline. My two cents? Nip them in the bud early and (maybe) post a link to a previous thread of the same topic.....or just send them to the "red" board at AOPA where such dialogue seems to be the norm.

Also, I'm certainly not trying to criticize the job the mods do or the rules that have been laid out. Just a "thinking out loud" suggestion from someone that also enjoys the civility of this place.

 

[Flyfalcons]

I would have serious reservations about a forum moderator or leader deleting a thread simply because it may not look favorable upon the group. The topics brought up are very serious, self-critiquing in nature, and are intended to help the group prevent, or at least consider, flying behavior that may or may not be looked upon highly by our fellow aviators.

 

[tejasflyer]

As commentary about both the low pass and the tone of the posts;
The low passes that I see generally are done with some degree of reservation. I am aware of what these planes are capable of, and in that regard they are generally very conservative. They could do much more aggressive maneuvers. I personally like a fly by. It let's me hear, see, and in a way feel the plane as it passes. What I don't like, since Reklaw was mentioned, is 12, count em, passes at full throttle by a Cessna. I like cessnas, but geez, 12 passes? As a side note, I very much enjoy Reklaw, but sadly, I think it has a limited life span.
About the tone of the forums, I like the discussions. I like the differences, but mostly I like seeing that the posters almost always end up quite civil, even disagreeing. Contrast that with the AOPA forums and you get why this is nice. I don't fly an RV, but a plastic airplane. Out of the flying public, I'd rather be here than in a sea of animosity called AOPA forums. Van's seems to self moderate most of the time. I like the people.

KB

 

[RV8R999]

nobody is forced to read a particular thread. If a thread doesn't sound interesting or is perceived by title to be overly debatable simply do not read it. Easy.

 

[Bob Axsom]

Flyfalcons's Comment

I read the comment about moderators deleting threads because they do not look favorably upon the group and it caused me to think about the forum. Several years ago this forum was deleted and it seemed to me that the attraction and value of the site went away. I think uncontrolled negative slanted threads toward individuals as categories, groups or single persons also reduce the appeal of the site. This forum does not have the responsibility to address all things aviation and perhaps the ground rules need to be revisited to weed out the bad influence. This isn't exactly a democracy and it doesn't have to serve the good with the bad with equal access - it can be brought back the sweetness and light, helpful and positive exchanges of information concerning RVs by the owner. Let Van, the NTSB, FAA, AOPA, EAA do their nasty work as they need to do it and if we want to influence them we can go to their forums for input. I am for locking all of these negative threads and terminate their cancerous growth or deleting them and deleting any future negative threads in the bud.

Bob Axsom

 

[lostpilot28]

Is a mid field crossing 500' above the traffic pattern...then at some point on the downwind side of the field tear drop entry into a 45 degree entry acceptable?

Hey Ron, no one answered this, and I'm curious what will be said, too. At my home field there is a helicopter training school who uses the south side of the runway at 500' below our TPA for their operations. I recently had a BFR done, and the instructor validated what I was doing when entering from the South. I enter at 500' above our TPA, and decend into the downwind (actually I probably start decending when I'm over the field). No tear-drop entry, just a turn to the downwind depending on the flow of traffic.

Funny story about the tear-drop entry, though...11 years ago when I was a student pilot, my instructor had me cross midfield, and enter the downwind after a tear-drop decending turn. Some local pilot got pretty vocal over the radio stating that we were doing a non-standard entry and could potentially confuse other traffic. If it hadn't been for that day, I'd still never know what kind of entry that was!

 

[Sig600]

Yes, except that sometimes they have waivers to exceed speed limits. For instance the T-38 is waivered to 300kias below 10kft. In general, military aircraft are subject to all the same rules that civilian aircraft are when operating anywhere in the NAS.

Not entirely accurate. Certain manuvers such as the break and G-warm are not considered aerobatic, however that doesn't mean you can't still get violated for ripping of a sht-hot break at 500 knots.

For instance we're waivered to 350 knots for visibility/manuverability below 10K feet. At a busy towered airport, if they can accomodate the over head I'll do it at something less than 350 knots, although usually I'll take the straight in to fit in with traffic and not highlight myself or create more work for the controllers (like taking a 4 ship into a busy class B airfield for the over head causing two 121 carriers to go around.). Usually the break altitude is above 1500' and just doesn't look cool anyway. However I've been into certain civilian fields that are familiar with Navy operations and without asking for it been cleared for the "carrier break" (800' break to 600' pattern), knowing full well it's for the controllers entertainment. In that case you can keep the speed down until within two miles or so, then let 'er rip. Doesn't mean you can't still get violated either way though.

There is a clause in OPNAV 3710 that basically says any operation that makes people on the ground that feel endangered by operations, is a violation of OPNAV. More subjective than some of the FAR's, so you can be completely within the letter of the law, but one person getting nervous about what you're doing is enough for you to be in the wrong. Perception is reality.

Personally I like seeing a good fly-by. We used to go stand at the end of the runway every evening when a local DC-3 cargo operator would depart, those made for some memorable events! Even an SH-60 (Ken!) can look cool with a well done fly-by, but it's hard to argue that there is ever a time and place for it. The FAR's are open to interpretation on the matter, and unfortunately the subjectivity is not in your favor.

 

[dabney]

"Pull closed" Where did that terminology/maneuver come from??

I have been flying a fair number of years and have never heard the term "pull closed" in any civilian aviation manual, magazine, AIM, etc. Have I been missing out on some important terminology utilized when landing at an airport??

 

[pauldan181]

Is a mid field crossing 500' above the traffic pattern...then at some point on the downwind side of the field tear drop entry into a 45 degree entry acceptable?

I do this all the time but usually 1000' above the pattern. The turn back to the downwind can be timed to blend in nicely with existing traffic. I don't believe there is anything wrong with this and maybe a topic for another thread?

Paul Danclovic
Jamestown NC
RV-8A N181SB

 

[LifeofReiley]

We just lost a pilot in a helicopter, tree topping it at 200 or so feet per the witnesses. It has nothing to do with RV's. Sometimes *&@% happens. Why would this thread blame the RV aircraft...?

 

[fehdxl]

I have been flying a fair number of years and have never heard the term "pull closed" in any civilian aviation manual, magazine, AIM, etc. Have I been missing out on some important terminology utilized when landing at an airport??

It's a military thing.

After the option, one would request the closed pattern from tower while rapidly accelerating in the oh-so-much-fun way that most high-powered military aircraft do (kind of like an RV, eh?). Once at the end of the runway (and now going fast) one would pull up first, then bank to turn downwind. Hence pulling closed.

At least that's my story.

-Jim

 

[dabney]

FAA and NTSB decisions on low passes at airports and elsewhere

On another thread these links were posted that are relevant to this thread concerning the legality of low passes etc. I have just reviewed all three of these cases. As you might suspect the NTSB upheld the penalties imposed by the FAA. They pretty much answer all the debate about the "legality' of low passes. They are worth reading IMHO.

I retired from law enforcement recently after 32 years. Police work changed dramatically during those years. In the end what I told my officers when they hit the streets each day, "everything you do today will likely be filmed and/or recorded. Act accordingly." I think the same can be said for flying. Just about everyone is carrying a video camera/camera in their phone. Fly safely and legally to avoid bad consequences.

The above comments were made by dabney. The links below I copied from Mr Radtke's post on another thread

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...08/pc0810.html

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...08/pc0804.html

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...ch/pc0903.html
__________________
Jeff Radtke
Lake Geneva, WI
RV-7A

 

[n5lp]

...

The above comments were made by dabney. The links below I copied from Mr Radtke's post on another thread

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...08/pc0810.html

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...08/pc0804.html

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...ch/pc0903.html
__________________
Jeff Radtke
Lake Geneva, WI
RV-7A

The links don't work for me.

 

[PCHunt]

Bad Links.

 

[dmaib]

Perception is reality.

This is the whole issue, when it is all boiled down.

 

[Ron Lee]

"Perception is reality"

I saw another RV make an overhead approach today. My perception is that it was a beautiful maneuver.

That is my reality.

 

[RV8R999]

Even an SH-60 (Ken!) can look cool with a well done fly-by, .

"EVEN" touche' Sig

 

[MauiLvrs]

I do this all the time but usually 1000' above the pattern. The turn back to the downwind can be timed to blend in nicely with existing traffic. I don't believe there is anything wrong with this and maybe a topic for another thread?

Doesn't everyone's instructor teach this???
Guess we've been flying sooo long now that we are old school

They also taught us that if you're not flyin a B-52, don't fly like you are

 

[Mile High Relic]

The section "missing" from the links above is pilot/2008 or pilot/2009. Where the link seems to read /pi...08/, replace that with /pilot/2008/ for instance.

I found the articles by searching last 6 characters in the link on the aopa site, i.e.pc0810, and have tried to repost the links.

www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2008/pc0810.html

www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2008/pc0803.html

www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2009/march/pc0903.html

 

[SHIPCHIEF]

Rural Grass Airpark

Low passes are not uncommon at rural grass strips.
The few people who live there generally like and expect them (with exceptions so you better know before you indulge er,..inspect) Cessna 195, RV, heck, Aeronca Chief.
And deer on the runway.....is a very real problem.
Checking such a runway prior to landing is prudent.
Carrying sufficient energy to elevate safely after inspecting the runway environment is also prudent.
Making sufficient sound and movement to cause said deer to depart is part of this safe, prudent fight operation.
A lack of structures within the 500 ft vertical separation would toss out that concern.
What say you critics??
What is the status at an official airport Fly In when attendees specifically ask and there is permission and a pre-flight briefing??
"Well Sir, I was making a nice normal landing, when I realized I had forgotten to put my gear down. It was too late then, so I went to full power and declared a balked landing". "All those people at the Fly In must have distracted me." (That's tongue -in-cheek we RV owners can't use the retractable gear excuse)

 

[terrykohler]

It's a Tired Story

According to one of my contacts at FSDO, the more common story is...
Why the low pass? I saw a dog on the runway.
If you were planning to land, why come in at high speed? I always carry extra speed in case of n an abort. These planes will land at over xxx knots.
High power? Needed to scare the dog.
Hard pull up? For safety. But it wasn't really that hard. I'm always thinking about safety when I fly. In fact, it was pretty much a textbook abort.
At this point, the FSDO guy says.... "let me show you a video filmed by a nearby resident"...
That #*\??, he must hate airplanes.
No, but he he got tired of talking to pilots and decided to start filming. Now, tell me again about the dog.
Well, there really was a dog, but you can't see him in the video, besides, someone asked me to do a low flyby and a hard pull, so I had permission.
Sounds good to me.
Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP

 

[Andy Hill]

UK Rules

I have done plenty of fast low passes in our RV7, however it has been done as a missed approach with the appropriate calls being made, an approach to say 50' followed by a short portion level and then climb away

Of course, you can dress it up as a low appproach and go-around.........

(both UK posters)... I am sure you both appreciate that the "low approach and GA", if intended, can only break the 500' criteria if 'it is flying in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of taking off from, landing' and is operating from a Licensed Airfield. You cannot break the 500' criteria for a planned Go-Around at an unlicensed airfield.

Andy

 

[Alan Carroll]

grass strips

Here's an interesting passage from an article pubilshed in FAA Aviation News:

"Proper assessment of the runway condition, when making a land/no-land decision, is the most critical skill for any pilot learning to land on grass. A pilot should learn to make a low pass over a grass runway to assess its condition prior to making this decision."

Full article: http://www.faa.gov/news/aviation_news/2009/media/JulAug2009-GrassIsAGas.pdf

 

[Sam Buchanan]

Here's an interesting passage from an article pubilshed in FAA Aviation News:

"Proper assessment of the runway condition, when making a land/no-land decision, is the most critical skill for any pilot learning to land on grass. A pilot should learn to make a low pass over a grass runway to assess its condition prior to making this decision."

Full article: http://www.faa.gov/news/aviation_news/2009/media/JulAug2009-GrassIsAGas.pdf

And..... is the assessment actually easier at 200kts than at 100kts?

I stopped the low pass thing several years ago, we have way too many birds in our area that like to go bug hunting in the vicinity of the runway. That little swallow can punch right through our canopies and make a huge mess$$. The fact everyone has a camera (and a Youtube account) should also be enough of a deterrent even if we are being "safe".

 

[Alan Carroll]

And..... is the assessment actually easier at 200kts than at 100kts?
.

I'm certainly not advocating such. Just pointing out that making a low pass without the intention to land appears to have been sanctioned by the FAA under certain circumstances. Doing the low pass at high speed does not seem to be consistent with the purpose of inspecting the runway however. I also doubt the FAA would be impressed with the argument that speed was kept high for safety in case of engine failure.

The wisdom of doing a high-speed low pass seems like a different topic than its legality.

 

[JustRich44]

You should be impressed......at the level of moron-ness.(new word!)

My new word for them is MO to the power or RON

 

[judoka5051]

Where is it?

We have a situation here in central Florida in one of our aviation communities where there is one individual who apparently takes great pleasure in turning folks into the FAA for certain activities at his home field.


What airport is it? I'm building an 8A, but in the meantime I fly a biplane (very blind forward). It's slow and draggy; so I fly a small pattern and do a turning slip from base to final so I can see. I'm sure the FAA guys would know what I'm doing and why... but I'd rather avoid any problems. I do like to show up at fly-ins, but I'll pass if there's one at this airport.

 

[Pat Hatch]

We have a situation here in central Florida in one of our aviation communities where there is one individual who apparently takes great pleasure in turning folks into the FAA for certain activities at his home field.

What airport is it?

I sent you a PM.

 

[LAMPSguy]

Low Pass

I must admit I have done a "high speed, high G" pull out...Luckily I fly a Bell 206 so pulling about 1.8 G up from 100 kts never impresses anyone but those in the aircraft!

Done it in an H-60 also...just a little more fun with 160 kts and pull, got more than 6000 FPM (for a handfull of seconds)...Still never impressed anyone on the ground (wasn't my intention...no one looked, they didn't care).

Now we have a very annoying neighbor who calls the base repeatedly to say our helicopters THOUSANDS (literally) of feet above spook her horses so we have a huge no fly from surface to unlimited for her.

I have personally heard from numerous people at airshows thanking us (or others) for the inverted turn at low altitude into the show (Like I said, flying a bell 206...trust me, no inversion happened!). Even semi-experienced "observers" can get it wrong.

I will paraphrase something I read a while back. "If you absolutely have to do it, do it once and get the **** out of there. No one gets a side number or even an accurate description on the first pass"

 

[gbrasch]

Look out for mast bumping after you nose over from that pull up in the 206!!!

 

[Bullseye]

It's been kind of hinted at, but not really spelled out here, so I'm posting this just for the reference (plus a little editorial comment after). My understanding is that aside from the "careless and reckless", the other low pass violation is for 91.119 (para (b) and (d) omitted):

Sec. 91.119 ? Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

It's pretty hard to abide by 91.119(a) at 100' and 200 kts if your engine fails. Vref, and maybe you can put it down by the end of the runway.

I've heard that the low pass suggested by the authorities to assess the landing surface is part of the "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing."

Not sure about the case law or precedent, but if I were standing in front of the judge, it'd be a lot easier to say I was evaluating the landing surface at a speed of Vref than from 200 kts.

Hope I' not just piling on.

 

[loopfuzz]

I would have serious reservations about a forum moderator or leader deleting a thread simply because it may not look favorable upon the group. The topics brought up are very serious, self-critiquing in nature, and are intended to help the group prevent, or at least consider, flying behavior that may or may not be looked upon highly by our fellow aviators.

I agree. Less government. Let us work things out.

 

[nucleus]

Fly Low Or Fly Slow, Just Don't Fly Low And Slow

It's been kind of hinted at, but not really spelled out here, so I'm posting this just for the reference (plus a little editorial comment after). My understanding is that aside from the "careless and reckless", the other low pass violation is for 91.119 (para (b) and (d) omitted):



It's pretty hard to abide by 91.119(a) at 100' and 200 kts if your engine fails. Vref, and maybe you can put it down by the end of the runway.

I've heard that the low pass suggested by the authorities to assess the landing surface is part of the "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing."

Not sure about the case law or precedent, but if I were standing in front of the judge, it'd be a lot easier to say I was evaluating the landing surface at a speed of Vref than from 200 kts.

Hope I' not just piling on.

I'm with you on evaluating the runway at a lower speed. It helps to see.

However, if you are going to fly 100 AGL, the faster you go the more kinetic energy you have, which enhances your ability to complete "an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface."

The oldest flying pilot I know told me once, "You can fly low and you can fly slow, but you don't want to fly low and slow"

Prior posted links have proven that the FAA can "get you" if they want to... So rather than worrying about what can happen at a potential hearing in the future, fly safely and let the chips fall where they may.

That is my philosophy anyway.

Hans

 

[Buggsy2]

[This email was posted to the Matronics lists by someone clearly upset by a local RVators club flyin earlier this year. It was forwarded to the president of the local RV club, a good guy who took care of matters. Is this how we want to be perceived??]

Guys:

XYZ flyin march 12

It has been reported that several of the RVs that attended this flyin did not communicate on unicom and flew thru the parachute landing zone. Also i know a pilot that was cut off by one of the RVs in the pattern that did not say a word on unicom. This **** has to stop and will stop if the feds have to get involved. This flyin resulted in multiple incursions into the parachute landing zone and one pilot was reported to get lost while taxing on the field to the point the he even taxied out to the road to get back to another area of the airport. We are professionals act like it!

While it is common for a group of this nature to use a common comm freq that does not relieve them of the responsibility to communicate with every one else.

An apology from the organizer of this flyin would go a long way toward patching relations with the XYZ field locals.

 

[az_gila]

I'm with you on evaluating the runway at a lower speed. It helps to see.

However, if you are going to fly 100 AGL, the faster you go the more kinetic energy you have, which enhances your ability to complete "an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface."

The oldest flying pilot I know told me once, "You can fly low and you can fly slow, but you don't want to fly low and slow"

Prior posted links have proven that the FAA can "get you" if they want to... So rather than worrying about what can happen at a potential hearing in the future, fly safely and let the chips fall where they may.

That is my philosophy anyway.

Hans

The 200 kt low pass that caused the FAA complaint at our airpark was really due to the fact that the "low" portion of the pass started a few miles out from the end of the runway...

If you must do a low pass, at least keep the low portion within the airport boundaries - this should keep most complaints from non-flying neighbors to a minimum...

It would also fit in with your speed/safety comment.

 

[taflores]

I like to hot dog it like that too if the pattern is clear, but I get lower than 100 ft

 

[Radomir]

It got so bad, even the ducks hate us now


I keed.. I keed..

 

[1Oldguy]

Bottom Line

Big brother and the local news stations are watching all of us. A few inmature folks can screw all of us with their "watch me" actions. All of us lucky enough to fly RV's should just be thankful for what we get to fly and enjoy them in a sain way. Our "FAA friends" can make our lives not so good. Their job is NOT to promote aviation but to "protect the public". Think about that for awhile. If you doubt this sit back and watch what happens after the dust settles out in Reno this year.

 

[Snowflake]

After the dust settles in Reno this year, the races will continue. They don't shut down entire auto racing divisions because a spectator was killed, and it's happened a few more times there than it has in Reno. Which is easy, because it's only happened *once* at Reno. In something like 40 years of racing.

 

[az_gila]

Big brother and the local news stations are watching all of us. A few inmature folks can screw all of us with their "watch me" actions. All of us lucky enough to fly RV's should just be thankful for what we get to fly and enjoy them in a sain way. Our "FAA friends" can make our lives not so good. Their job is NOT to promote aviation but to "protect the public". Think about that for awhile. If you doubt this sit back and watch what happens after the dust settles out in Reno this year.

The FSDO inspector I spoke to at the Scottsdale office after our complaint said that his calls about triple after a big newsworthy aviation incident like Reno.

Sure enough our complainer to the North called the day after the Reno accident to complain about a helicopter circling low (and unsafe) over his house...

 

[plehrke]

Our "FAA friends" can make our lives not so good. Their job is NOT to promote aviation but to "protect the public". Think about that for awhile. If you doubt this sit back and watch what happens after the dust settles out in Reno this year.

It may not be the FAA that will effect Reno Air Race's future as much as the insurance companies. I wonder if RARA will be able to afford their new insurance premium.

 

[jrs14855]

RENO

Read somewhere that aviation insurance revenues are down 40% since 08. Insurance companys are hungry for business. Consensus is that Reno is insurable, just a question of price. RARA will double or triple the admission cost to cover insurance, and I have a feeling the city will accept modest insurance coverage that other cities would likely not accept. If Reno was $200 or even more per day I would still go. Over the last three years it has become my most important aviation event. I go mostly for the Unlimiteds, I could care less about the jets, but enjoy all the other classes.

 

[Toobuilder]

I read somewhere that the insurance companies have weighed in on the Reno subject and there will not likely be a change in rates or coverage for the near term.

 

[Buggsy2]

Their [FAA's] job is NOT to promote aviation but to "protect the public".

The FAA does both tasks mentioned above (and some others) and they do not contradict each other. Aviation becomes accepted and used by the public only if it is perceived as being very safe. How else would you get people to pay money to get into closed tubes that fly miles above the ground at 500 mph?

Protecting the public means cracking down on nimrod GA pilots. To be sure, sometimes other GA pilots get caught in the dragnet. So be it. Some of their regs need updating or adjusting, but if we don't police ourselves someone else will police us. You choose.

 

[flyboy1963]

Reno - thread drift #235

...I can see some new limitations, as seen at airshows after numerous tragedies threatened them......more separation of spectators from the flight line, course modification to further reduce energy directed at the crowd ,etc. etc.

 

[az_gila]

...I can see some new limitations, as seen at airshows after numerous tragedies threatened them......more separation of spectators from the flight line, course modification to further reduce energy directed at the crowd ,etc. etc.

How about better testing of the race planes before they are allowed to race in public?

 

[Flying Scotsman]

How about better testing of the race planes before they are allowed to race in public?

Given all the military airplane crashes at airshows over the years, would you say the same thing about GD and NG and the other manufacturers?

 

[Toobuilder]

How about better testing of the race planes before they are allowed to race in public?

#1 These airplanes and pilots are "tested" quite a bit before competition, but are by their very nature, on the edge. Nobody would watch a bunch of "perfectly safe" 172's dicing for position on the course

#2 The "public" are there willingly. They put themselves in harms way with eyes wide open.