Mustang down at Legends, Pilot o.k
Discussion
Damian, I'm not trying to have an argument.
A Barrel Roll is not an Aileron Roll (Twinkle Roll) is not a Slow Roll is not a Canadian Break is not a Derry Turn is not a Quarter Clover, is not a Wingover (although an extreme Wingover can be 'stretched' into something resembling a Barrel).
The point I was making is that they are all extreme rolling manoeuvres and all require a pitch input else the a/c will start to descend. Fail to add the pitch close to the ground and it's 'sayonara' because the ground has a Pk = 1.
There have been an awful lot of rolling/pitching manoeuvres close to the ground over the years that have killed an awful lot of pilots. I grant that the Mosquito had an engine failure whilst in the Wingover but that in itself would result in a loss of thrust, airspeed, directional control, and pitch authority so the point still stands that such manoeuvres close to the ground carry an inherent risk if you don't, or can't, make the pitch input.
A Barrel Roll is not an Aileron Roll (Twinkle Roll) is not a Slow Roll is not a Canadian Break is not a Derry Turn is not a Quarter Clover, is not a Wingover (although an extreme Wingover can be 'stretched' into something resembling a Barrel).
The point I was making is that they are all extreme rolling manoeuvres and all require a pitch input else the a/c will start to descend. Fail to add the pitch close to the ground and it's 'sayonara' because the ground has a Pk = 1.
There have been an awful lot of rolling/pitching manoeuvres close to the ground over the years that have killed an awful lot of pilots. I grant that the Mosquito had an engine failure whilst in the Wingover but that in itself would result in a loss of thrust, airspeed, directional control, and pitch authority so the point still stands that such manoeuvres close to the ground carry an inherent risk if you don't, or can't, make the pitch input.
The regulations have tightened significantly since the Ramstein disaster in 1988.
I remember at the time I was at a racing friend's house and we were just about to set out to Snetterton to overnight prior to a Race Meeting. It came on the radio news that there had been an accident and my first comment was: "I bet it was the Frecce." Sadly I was correct.
Having sat on the combined RAF/FAA/Civil Air Show Co-ordination and Flight Safety Committee, I'm not sure the Civil Regs are (yet) tight enough compared to the Military Regs because I have seen several Management failures, and additionally, cases where Civilian pilots (and Foreign Military pilots/teams) have been banned from displaying at RAF run events.
I am also not convinced that the standard of Briefings is sufficient and I am worried that there seems to be no formal structure in place for assessing and authorising displays based upon proper assessment of practice work ups (unlike the RAF). Indeed my gut feeling is that a number of Civilian displays are somewhat 'Gash' in their planning, regulation, and execution.
I remember at the time I was at a racing friend's house and we were just about to set out to Snetterton to overnight prior to a Race Meeting. It came on the radio news that there had been an accident and my first comment was: "I bet it was the Frecce." Sadly I was correct.
Having sat on the combined RAF/FAA/Civil Air Show Co-ordination and Flight Safety Committee, I'm not sure the Civil Regs are (yet) tight enough compared to the Military Regs because I have seen several Management failures, and additionally, cases where Civilian pilots (and Foreign Military pilots/teams) have been banned from displaying at RAF run events.
I am also not convinced that the standard of Briefings is sufficient and I am worried that there seems to be no formal structure in place for assessing and authorising displays based upon proper assessment of practice work ups (unlike the RAF). Indeed my gut feeling is that a number of Civilian displays are somewhat 'Gash' in their planning, regulation, and execution.
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Wednesday 13th July 20:41
Someone asked if I'd voiced my concerns re. Flying Legends to the display co-ordinator (no). *Presumably* it's the job of the co-ordinator to manage a safe show, therefore if it's also his job to take complaints on board and discipline pilots, then isn't there a conflict of interest? Surely they'll be less ikely to be willing criticise their 'own' airshow?
dr_gn said:
Still, the fact that no members of the public have been injured at a UK airshow since...a long time ago says a lot about the current safety regs. Maybe I'm just wary of old aircraft.
Some members of the public having a pleasure flight at an airshow were killed after a collision at Biggin Hill I believe, maybe in the 1980's, but they weren't in the capacity of spectators. There was also someone killed by being struck by a model aircraft doing a flying display (early 90's).
There may have been some minor injuries from flying debris after the Buffalo crash at Farnborough in 1984.
The last serious spectator injuries among spectators at a UK airshow were in 1952.
Dr Jekyll said:
dr_gn said:
Still, the fact that no members of the public have been injured at a UK airshow since...a long time ago says a lot about the current safety regs. Maybe I'm just wary of old aircraft.
Some members of the public having a pleasure flight at an airshow were killed after a collision at Biggin Hill I believe, maybe in the 1980's, but they weren't in the capacity of spectators.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
As the Lead breaks the No 2 becomes effectively the Lead for No 3 and so on.
No idea if it was a factor in the Duxford incident, but it did lead me to re-consider the dynamics of a vic break. Flying a neat vic means that there is a secondary fore-and-aft reference between #2 and #3, and in my experience #3 is tasked with maintaining fore-and-aft reference on #2. In a vic break, with the leader gone, #3's primary reference becomes #2, and if the leader is breaking up and over #3 then the loss of visual contact by #3 is immediate because he's focussing on #2. In reverse vic, a leader breaking in the same direction would pass over the #2, leaving #2 free to try maintain visual contact with the leader - and at least keeps #2 and #3 looking out of the correct side of the aircraft. Might not have the slightest bearing on the Duxford crash, but another item for the memory bank. That being said, I can't ever recall being part of a vic break where the leader departs first - I do remember one box break (non-radio Chilton lead, 2 x Yak-52 and one Red-Bull Sukhoi) which in retrospect could have been a bit more crisp...Thinking about it, do the multi-engine fraternity default to a reverse vic?
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Tail Chasing is a little different....
I don't do aileron rolls in tailchases, not because it is inherently risky, but because it is inherently pointless - from the lead perspective, it doesn't change the lead/lag equation for the followers, and from the following perspective, you can invariably stay at the same aspect to the leader while he's tarting about in an axial roll, and simply wait to see what he's going to do next. Yes, if you really want to kick someone off your tail, a high-rate axial roll component before a direction change can help, but no-one likes a tailchase leader who kicks everyone out in 20 seconds flat. Big, barrelled figures every time, loops as well as rolls - I always lead tailchase loops with 10 degrees off at the top, to avoid a silently stretched #3.Eric Mc said:
More airshow crashes occur following low altitude rolls than any other manoeuver - so I've heard.
The fundamental cause - collisions aside - is failure to maintain height, and by definition figures which involve a large vertical displacement are more at risk of the negative displacement outweighing the positive. Axial rolls, either a classic slow roll where the nose is kept up with the aid of co-ordinated top rudder, or a ballistic roll, where the nose is pitched high beforehand, and allowed to drop slightly through the figure, provided the roll input is maintained and correctly co-ordinated, are not the problem. It generally occurs as a result of a barrelled figure, with an incorrect nose attitude at the inverted point. If the nose is low at the top, and you continue to roll and pull, you will invariably finish lower than you started. If you started low anyway, bad things will happen.Ginetta G15 Girl said:
I am also not convinced that the standard of Briefings is sufficient and I am worried that there seems to be no formal structure in place for assessing and authorising displays based upon proper assessment of practice work ups (unlike the RAF). Indeed my gut feeling is that a number of Civilian displays are somewhat 'Gash' in their planning, regulation, and execution.
From observation, I think it's true that from both the aerobatic and formation side of civil displays you can see who came through the more formal channels - the competition route for aerobatics, and a military-trained background for formation - rather than a more home-brewed route. In the former, you're constantly being critiqued and evaluated, with your shortcomings brought under the spotlight, and hopefully you improve on the basis of that. Some folk don't react well to such critique. I know I'd rather be flying with. That being said, traditionally the military have more generous display training budgets, and hence tend to have their upsets in a training environment rather than in front of the crowd. I suspect those days are over though, and that the military will simply react by getting out of the display business altogether.
dr_gn said:
Someone asked if I'd voiced my concerns re. Flying Legends to the display co-ordinator (no). *Presumably* it's the job of the co-ordinator to manage a safe show, therefore if it's also his job to take complaints on board and discipline pilots, then isn't there a conflict of interest? Surely they'll be less ikely to be willing criticise their 'own' airshow?
I think you're seriously under-estimating the weight placed on crowd safety, particularly at a place like Duxford. There are, relatively, plenty of display pilots and aircraft available, but very few locations like Duxford. If they decide they don't like someone's flying, they will let them know, in no uncertain terms. Frankly, the administrators at Duxford are probably at a lot more anal than anywhere else in the country about that sort of thing. Hence, should you have had the courage of your convictions and actually raised the incidents you apparently saw with them, then the matter would have quickly been resolved, one way or the other. Edited by eharding on Thursday 14th July 00:27
Simpo Two said:
Blimey this is getting complicated. Makes you wonder how WW2 newbies with 20 hours experience managed to fly a vic and get out of it!
"WW2 newbies" invariably had a couple of hundred hours total time, granted not a lot of it in the front-line types. It was however, in the early days, the RAF's slavish adherence to flying close formation configurations into combat which killed a lot of them, poor sods. 
Close formation is like a parade drill. It is an excellent means of promoting team skills, precise handling, discipline, and has a fairly severe sanction in the event of failure - far worse than a drill instructor screaming at you. It is also very useful for moving groups of aircraft about the place from an air traffic perspective. It has very little use in combat - tactical formation is all about flexible mutual support, and performance, often from miles apart. Not good for airshows.
Simpo Two said:
Would the finger four be a safer airshow formation?
Eh? The "finger four" formation was a tactical air combat formation, initially adopted by the Condor Legion fighter pilots in Spain and later the Luftwaffe. It was eventually adopted by the RAF and USAAF during World War 2. It was a fairly loose formation but was much more flexible than the traditional Vic and gave the formation a better ability to see what was ghoing on around them and better cover of their rear.
The picture shows the general formation but in reality, the formation would normally be a lot looser than shown here.
The picture shows the general formation but in reality, the formation would normally be a lot looser than shown here.
Eric Mc said:
The "finger four" formation was a tactical air combat formation, initially adopted by the Condor Legion fighter pilots in Spain and later the Luftwaffe. It was eventually adopted by the RAF and USAAF during World War 2. It was a fairly loose formation but was much more flexible than the traditional Vic and gave the formation a better ability to see what was ghoing on around them and better cover of their rear.
The picture shows the general formation but in reality, the formation would normally be a lot looser than shown here.
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/bf109/Bf109t... shows the 3 dimensional aspect.The picture shows the general formation but in reality, the formation would normally be a lot looser than shown here.
Edited by Mojocvh on Thursday 14th July 09:37
Eric Mc said:
much more flexible than the traditional Vic and gave the formation a better ability to see what was ghoing on around them
Hence my suggestion it might be a better bet at displays as the Duxford crash was caused by an unsighted pilot. Although I agree in an airshow you are more interested in watching your colleagues than watching for threats from outside the formation, which is what the finger four/Schwarm was designed for. In combat it proved much better than the British 'weaver' system, the weaver frequently being the one who got the chop.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff