Preventing Air Show Crashes

[PirateAF]

Well it seems that AMC has been taking note of some of the opinions on this board...our demonstration flight this weekend has been CNX'd, and it would appear that all C-17 demos have been put on hold until further notice.

[Guest]

Well it seems that AMC has been taking note of some of the opinions on this board...our demonstration flight this weekend has been CNX'd, and it would appear that all C-17 demos have been put on hold until further notice.

That sucks. The C-17 demo is one of the best I've ever seen...but maybe that's because I don't know herbivores and some of the mnvrs just don't seem possible for a big bastard like that.

More impressive was the daily real world demo that airplane put on at old school Bagram when we forced them to operate on 70' x 4500' so we could work on the rwy between A-10 launch/rcvry windows. That shit was impressive.

[BigFreddie]

Just did a safety briefing about stabilized approaches. I know the criteria came to the C-5 world due to a crew miscalculating their gross weight by 100k and another that couldn't arrest the sink after a very steep tactical approach. Both ended up doing considerable damage to the aircraft. The SII you speak of had an expiration date of 31 July 10 - so it is no longer in effect.

BF

[HuggyU2]

Back to airshow safety...

So, who do y'all think is most responsible for safety at an airshow?

Air Boss

FAA Rep (Inspector in Charge)

Individual Performer

Organizer of the show ("Individual Responsible")

[Coasta]

Back to airshow safety...

So, who do y'all think is most responsible for safety at an airshow?

Air Boss

FAA Rep (Inspector in Charge)

Individual Performer

Organizer of the show ("Individual Responsible")

This isn't something that you can pin on one guy, although that what our culture seems to like--a scapegoat. It's everyone's responsibility. At the airshow though, in and around aircraft, it's the owners/operators of that aircraft or static display or whatever. The whole scapegoat idea lends itself to finger pointing and takes individual accountability out of the mix. It's easy: Mess up. Fess up.

[moosepileit]

The ACE (aerobatic competency evaluation) or "level" card program was interesting to experience. 800', 500' 250' and ground up were the levels back in my day. I think they want to add one more. You start at 800' AGL as your floor, fly a certain number of shows per year, then MAY move down, based on flying in front of your ACE.

You may train with, know or be friends with the ACE, or just fly in front of them once. The FAA issues the level card, but does not evaluate- The International Council on Airshows ACE is the StanEval pilot, the FAA is the SELO.

At the show, the FAA has a MX rep check your plane/logs and the ops rep checks your certs and gets you read in on the waiver along w/ the Air Boss.

The "Don't do nuthin Dumb" is up to you.

View PostHuggyu2, on 15 September 2010 - 12:17 AM, said:

Back to airshow safety...

So, who do y'all think is most responsible for safety at an airshow?

A- Air Boss

B- FAA Rep (Inspector in Charge)

C- Individual Performer

D- Organizer of the show ("Individual Responsible")

Multiple Choice- When in doubt, always go w/ C.

[WeMeantWell]

Late to the game, thoughts to take it a little deeper (sts):

Purpose of the Airshow? Recruitment? Re-assurance to the people of the power defending them? Make lots of noise, piss off more people then you impress?

Recruitment-Airshows are generally not recruiting the 18-21 year old, they are recruiting the 5-10 year olds (so, yes we need to keep doing them, even though we are doing good with recruitment now)

What's the best recruitment of 5-10 year olds, fly a "safe" and "representative of your plane" couple of passes, take a picture of your plane, sign it, give it to the kid, then show him around the plane... some Demo pilots/crews do this, many do not. Why does AMC spend $100,000+ of money on your training, travel to, performance at, and travel back from an airshow to recruit and give you (as I recall, maybe different now) absolutely no help in/no chance at any recruiting... Would $200 in pictures and patches really impact your budget... (well yes, it comes from another pot of $$!)

The point: Airshows are awesome, they accomplish much more than just recruitment, the problem is many (typically not the dedicated teams) are just done to be done. The MAJCOMs that authorize them need to decide exactly what they are to accomplish and provide support. I thought the AMC process to upgrade pilots and the actual profile was generally well thought out, I never felt the need to "push" anything, but, maybe "rush" things, and generally I tried not to. The Airshow is all about timing, you must go on time, so the headline act can go on time...

I always thought growing up when watching airshows that when the performer "knocks it off" and resets, like a go-around or something, it actually gives them credibility that it is difficult what they are doing, and I never thought anything about it as a kid... a kid (and 99.999% of the public) has no idea the difference between most of the aircraft or their performance. They know small jet->loud engine, fly fast, do loops, big jet-slow moving, wow, how does it fly? beyond that, you aren't really impressing anyone.

[HuggyU2]

Back to the "Who is the one person most responsible for safety at an airshow"...

The airshow industry did a survey this year, including this question.

91% of Airbosses said the Airboss is.

28% of pilots said Airboss.

And 60% of airshow organizers said Airboss.

As one airboss stated (I'm paraphrasing): the fact that 71% of pilots think they (pilots) are most responsible just goes to show how little they actually know.

[BQZip01]

The idea that "Heavy aircraft shouldn't perform demonstrations" is laughable. We fly low-level and these kinds of maneuvers all the time. 2 demo crashes in 16 years is an amazing safety record; even the much-lauded T-Birds can't beat that average.

From this article (from this paper only & without any knowledge of the SIB's findings), it sounds like the guy had little/no oversight. He was using modified checklists without any authorization.

The lesson I take from this would be to have proper oversight of your personnel. Do random checks on aircraft for proper publications. Review entire sorties from beginning to end. If you are going to have a demo team, they need to CONSTANTLY be reviewed for competency and that their routines are safely within the margin of error and within the flight envelope of the aircraft in question. Their should be high-level reviews of ALL routines; any deviations from the plan/outside of the -1 parameters should have to be signed off by a squadron commander/Stan Eval.

Your thoughts?

[itsokimapilot]

The idea that "Heavy aircraft shouldn't perform demonstrations" is laughable. We fly low-level and these kinds of maneuvers all the time. 2 demo crashes in 16 years is an amazing safety record; even the much-lauded T-Birds can't beat that average.

From this article (from this paper only & without any knowledge of the SIB's findings), it sounds like the guy had little/no oversight. He was using modified checklists without any authorization.

The lesson I take from this would be to have proper oversight of your personnel. Do random checks on aircraft for proper publications. Review entire sorties from beginning to end. If you are going to have a demo team, they need to CONSTANTLY be reviewed for competency and that their routines are safely within the margin of error and within the flight envelope of the aircraft in question. Their should be high-level reviews of ALL routines; any deviations from the plan/outside of the -1 parameters should have to be signed off by a squadron commander/Stan Eval.

Your thoughts?

Totally agree, I doubt any Commander would have signed off on a profile that exceeded -1 guidance.

[ellsworb]

The lesson I take from this would be to have proper oversight of your personnel. Do random checks on aircraft for proper publications. Review entire sorties from beginning to end. If you are going to have a demo team, they need to CONSTANTLY be reviewed for competency and that their routines are safely within the margin of error and within the flight envelope of the aircraft in question. Their should be high-level reviews of ALL routines; any deviations from the plan/outside of the -1 parameters should have to be signed off by a squadron commander/Stan Eval.

Your thoughts?

Not just oversight, but, in the -17 community, there is really only 1 acknowledged demo team, and they are the LTS fellas. They get lots of time for practice. Though I was a demo dude before I left, within the network I advocated that they really should be the only ones doing the profile. Dudes on the coast just don't get the time or resources to practice the profile to be truly proficient when needed. The fellas hated *my* thoughts on it, but I stand by it. Full demo profiles should be left to designated teams, flyovers not withstanding.

Any other -17 dudes feel similarly?

[HuggyU2]

... in the -17 community, there is really only 1 acknowledged demo team, and they are the LTS fellas.

Doesn't March ARB have an "official" Demo Team? As I understand it, they are the ones that developed the routine.

[GoAround]

Not just oversight, but, in the -17 community, there is really only 1 acknowledged demo team, and they are the LTS fellas. They get lots of time for practice. Though I was a demo dude before I left, within the network I advocated that they really should be the only ones doing the profile. Dudes on the coast just don't get the time or resources to practice the profile to be truly proficient when needed. The fellas hated *my* thoughts on it, but I stand by it. Full demo profiles should be left to designated teams, flyovers not withstanding.

Any other -17 dudes feel similarly?

I personally don't feel that the C-17 should have any demo team. It's a heavy cargo plane that should fly straight and level--then vectors to an ILS full stop. C-17 pilots should know their role in the circle of life. Our plane isn't a fighter and we aren't fighter pilots. We haul cargo and trash. Period.

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

I personally don't feel that the C-17 should have any demo team. It's a heavy cargo plane that should fly straight and level--then vectors to an ILS full stop. C-17 pilots should know their role in the circle of life. Our plane isn't a fighter and we aren't fighter pilots. We haul cargo and trash. Period.

I disagree, to a point. While I agree that the C-17 isn't a fighter, and shouldn't be flown like one, I disagree that its capabilities shouldn't be demonstrated. Note I said the capabilities of the C-17, not how the C-17 can be flown in a manner similar to much smaller aircraft with a different mission. This means short field ops, tactical arrivals, etc, staying well within the -1 and 11-2C-17v3 operating limitations.

Remember, airshows are not for us, they're for the owners of the airplanes (US taxpayers). I see it as a way to show them that they're getting their money's worth on at least SOMETHING that is being bought with their hard earned money. With that in mind, airshow profiles (same as flyovers, that was beaten to death in another thread) should be flown to impress NON-PILOTS. You'll never impress a pilot, simply make him think he can fly it better than you. Fly the profile, be boring to every pilot there, and the other 99.69% of people in attendance will love it. Survive the routine, maintain your aeronautical rating, full stop, shut down, and shag the demo girls, cheerleaders, or any other target of opportunity.

[aquajam77]

Doesn't March ARB have an "official" Demo Team? As I understand it, they are the ones that developed the routine.

Don't know to how "official" official is, but they do exist, and I've seen them at Edwards before as the West Coast Demo Team, part of the 452 AMW. Can't seem to find a good info page on them, but there are pages out there (i.e. March ARB News and Facebook)

[zrooster99]

I personally don't feel that the C-17 should have any demo team. It's a heavy cargo plane that should fly straight and level--then vectors to an ILS full stop. C-17 pilots should know their role in the circle of life. Our plane isn't a fighter and we aren't fighter pilots. We haul cargo and trash. Period.

Totally disagree. The plane is capable of more than that and crews train to do more than that. A good demo (from the perspective of the target audience) can be accomplished safely within the limits of the -1.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

I personally don't feel that the C-17 should have any demo team. It's a heavy cargo plane that should fly straight and level--then vectors to an ILS full stop. C-17 pilots should know their role in the circle of life. Our plane isn't a fighter and we aren't fighter pilots. We haul cargo and trash. Period.

I'm not a C-17 bubba, but I do know the C-17 does far more than high-altitude jet routes then one to a full stop. By your own argument you shouldn't even be doing touch-and-gos. It's pretty obvious you aren't an airdrop guy either. I'm a C-130 guy and yeah, it's a big fat prop-job. But we routinely fly at 300' AGL in formation through mountain valleys, pulling 60 degrees AOB at low altitude.

Fly per the envelop and you're fine. The PAED guys didn't and that's what bit them in the end.

[GoAround]

I'm not a C-17 bubba, but I do know the C-17 does far more than high-altitude jet routes then one to a full stop. By your own argument you shouldn't even be doing touch-and-gos. It's pretty obvious you aren't an airdrop guy either. I'm a C-130 guy and yeah, it's a big fat prop-job. But we routinely fly at 300' AGL in formation through mountain valleys, pulling 60 degrees AOB at low altitude.

Fly per the envelop and you're fine. The PAED guys didn't and that's what bit them in the end.

That's so cool that you fly at 300', fly through mountain valleys, and go inverted in your trash can...don't really care and I'm not impressed.

The guy before asked my opinion...and I gave him my opinion--I said we shouldn't have any demo team. I speak from just a little bit experience, which includes being on a 17 demo team, airdrop lead, and chief pilot for my Sq (stan/eval). This was all before flying the desk I'm on now. As a senior captain, I didn't see any issue with a demo team. Over the next few years, after incidents at Rodeo, airshows, and training lines, my view changed to the one I hold today. It's not worth the risk so I don't support demo teams.

[Hacker]

chief pilot for my Sq (stan/eval).

Do you guys in the heavy community really equate your squadron Chief of Stan/Eval as your squadron's "chief pilot"?

If a guy claimed something like that in a fighter squadron, he'd be laughed out the door.

Not throwing stones at you, personally, just wondering if that's a thing in the heavy world, as obviously there are significant cultural differences between us.

[EnriquePallazo]

That's so cool that you fly at 300', fly through mountain valleys, and go inverted in your trash can...

As a senior captain...

Let's remember what this thread is about, losing four fellow aviators, not dick measuring and trolling.

Hacker: No they are not the chief pilot.

Edit to answer Hacker's question.

Edited December 28, 2010 by EnriquePallazo

[zrooster99]

That's so cool that you fly at 300', fly through mountain valleys, and go inverted in your trash can...don't really care and I'm not impressed.

The guy before asked my opinion...and I gave him my opinion--I said we shouldn't have any demo team. I speak from just a little bit experience, which includes being on a 17 demo team, airdrop lead, and chief pilot for my Sq (stan/eval). This was all before flying the desk I'm on now. As a senior captain, I didn't see any issue with a demo team. Over the next few years, after incidents at Rodeo, airshows, and training lines, my view changed to the one I hold today. It's not worth the risk so I don't support demo teams.

Well, I'm certainly no "senior Captain", but I flew the plane long enough to know there's nothing wrong with doing an air show demo in it as long as you follow the rules. I know plenty of DOV and OGV types in the community that would agree.

[PirateAF]

17 pilots should know their role in the circle of life. Our plane isn't a fighter and we aren't fighter pilots. We haul cargo and trash. Period.

Glad you're stuck at a desk.

In my opinion this was an oversight problem. I've got the same background as you "goaround", and your negative attitude towards fellow crewdogs who love the c17 and its mission doesn't help anyone.

[Guest Crew Report]

Do you guys in the heavy community really equate your squadron Chief of Stan/Eval as your squadron's "chief pilot"?

If a guy claimed something like that in a fighter squadron, he'd be laughed out the door.

Not throwing stones at you, personally, just wondering if that's a thing in the heavy world, as obviously there are significant cultural differences between us.

The guy/girl that runs Stan Eval wouldn't be your most proficient and knowledgeable Instructor, which is why he/she is now an Evaluator and runs Stan Eval? Not always the case in the heavy world, but it happens a lot.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Crew Report

[Chuck17]

I personally don't feel that the C-17 should have any demo team. It's a heavy cargo plane that should fly straight and level--then vectors to an ILS full stop. C-17 pilots should know their role in the circle of life. Our plane isn't a fighter and we aren't fighter pilots. We haul cargo and trash. Period.

YGBSM.

This happens in cycles. The cycle has already gone around once. Every time another report comes out things got MORE conservative. Then people relax. The same thing will happen on a larger scale within the heavy world: standard "OH FUCK" knee-jerk reaction from AMC will put the ka-bash on things for a while. Then AMC will write the no-shit rules for everyone to follow with regards to demo teams, remove ambiguity, and establish East and West Coast Demos. The Reserves will get one, and so will PACAF... but it will follow a period of over-conservationism that, in the end, was brought on by a culture of "mission first, at any cost." The program was delegated, didn't get oversight, and they got burned.

These dudes packed it in because they didn't follow the rules. I'm sure there will be lack of oversight findings as well that will trickle down to OG and OGV types getting moved on to other duties. It fucking sucks. Im witness to it firsthand, every single day.

But I wont stand for guys saying "kill the demo" or that this was somehow to blame on how we currently employ the aircraft, be it in training or in real-world ops. It's not the case. This was an anomaly. If it wasn't, then it would have happened before...

This discussion has already occurred. Tactics/Training isn't to blame - stop trying. The same guys blaming this on tactics and training are the same guys who will be whaling when the next mass airdrop gets lit up over JATWISH DZ because they were holding each others cocks doing a SKE pass.... Sound tactics and training are inherently safe. What happened at Elmendorf wasn't.

You're right about one thing GoAround, it's not a fighter plane and we (myself included) are NOT fighter pilots. But if you think flying this bird is about one to a full stop, haulin' shit and chewin' cud, you're way off. But then again, Ive been out of AMC for almost 4 years learning how the rest of the USAF thinks, plans and fights. What do I know...?

Chuck

Edited December 28, 2010 by Chuck17

[Hacker]

The guy/girl that runs Stan Eval wouldn't be your most proficient and knowledgeable Instructor, which is why he/she is now an Evaluator and runs Stan Eval? Not always the case in the heavy world, but it happens a lot.

In a fighter squadron the Chief of Stan/Eval isn't necessarily the most skilled or tactically proficient pilot, no. That position is called the Weapons Officer...and in many fighter squadrons, that Weapons Officer would have to duel with the DO or the CC over who the most skilled and tactically proficient one is (because that DO or CC might just be an experienced patchwearer, too).

Although it's a funny joke, the idea that someone is "not a good instructor, so make 'em an evaluator" is rarely what happens in reality (again, speaking based on experiences in the fighter world).