Airshow tragedies in the USA

Ahh, had you filled in a Risk Assesment? :diablo:

Where high wings are to be found, I am told that the BBMF have some fancy suction system that sits on top of the wing and then the personnel can attach themselves to it with a lanyard.

I remember many years ago at Dx someone was working on Lindsays Corsair, started to slide off & grabbed the brace which resulted in him dislocating his shoulder.
Altho given the mists of time it may have been the OFMC Corsair, I know it wasn’t TFC’s one.

Ahh, had you filled in a Risk Assesment? :diablo:

Where high wings are to be found, I am told that the BBMF have some fancy suction system that sits on top of the wing and then the personnel can attach themselves to it with a lanyard.

No fancy suction system for me here “Mr bowserman please DONT pull the hose!”

Hell, I’ve stepped off a wing before & missed the ladder, that was bad enough.

Ahh, had you filled in a Risk Assesment? :diablo:

Where high wings are to be found, I am told that the BBMF have some fancy suction system that sits on top of the wing and then the personnel can attach themselves to it with a lanyard.

Hell, I’ve stepped off a wing before & missed the ladder, that was bad enough.

JDK, I sure hope you did not think I said or implied that airshow flying (i.e. aerobatic) and plane transfer are usually the same risk!! (In some cases I suppose they could be…..but exceptionally only).

Not at all Tony! However it is a response to to several other comments in this thread. We are all entitled to our opinions.

JDK, I sure hope you did not think I said or implied that airshow flying (i.e. aerobatic) and plane transfer are usually the same risk!! (In some cases I suppose they could be…..but exceptionally only).

I can see a great difference between a worked-out and authorised airshow display in an aircraft wearing a parachute and operating at heights where it was (just) usable, and transferring from one aircraft to another with no safety equipment or margin for error which is guaranteed to be a fatal act if anything goes wrong.

I don’t believe that a mid-air aircraft transfer would get a DA in the UK, nor here in Australia, because of basic risk analysis – that the chance of something going wrong is too high and that if something did go wrong the chance of recovery is non-existent.

If you see an airshow display and a mid-air aircraft transfer as similar risk, you don’t understand the risk analysis.

I’m not criticising the gentleman in question; what he was undertaking was a legal public entertainment in the US; I was just surprised it was still possible and I don’t think it should be.

There are a lot of things people “like to do”, and some of them are normally illegal to protect themselves, and others should be, while yet more are a ‘right’. The trick is where the line is drawn, NOT that the line exists – that’s part of the social contract of a modern, humane civilisation.

Good entertainment should look risky but be safe; not be as risky as it seems and provide a public death in front of an audience in the 21st century.

That is, of course just my opinion, and I’m very sorry for the loss of a life and the trauma to those involved. Terrible.

Only since someone started mentioning Bearcats! 😉

There’s another thread now about the Wildcat ground loop…

When did we get to this odd little point in society when everyone is automatically traumatised whenever they supposedly see something nasty..?
I bet half that ‘traumatised’ audience went home, had tea and never thought anything else about it.
That was the percentage of the audience who were actually watching at the time and not talking, queing for a hotdog, visiting the toilet etc etc.
The media reptiles (who on the whole have nothing better to write about) have lead us to believe that we have to be seen to have huge outpourings of public grief whenever anything goes slightly **** up.

As I said, RIP the guys who died.
They were doing what they loved.

A.

Ok, I have now written replies 2 times and lost them before posting (the forum timed me out)…hopefully 3rd time lucky….

Every activity involves risk, some people will take/accept more risk than others. We all take risk in our lives – some ride motorbikes, some only drive ‘safe’ cars. We all do mini risk assessments in our lives and mitigate the risk to some extent (usually without knowing it!). Some people live on the edge. In everyday life, those that are not so good at assessing risk for activities and putting in place adequate mitigation are usually to be found in A&E! All activities also have fast balls/ wild cards (i.e. other drivers when you are riding a motorbike, sh1t happens etc). Usually you identify your activity and then work out all the hazards – then you put mitigation to reduce the risk of an accident or incident – simple?
Generally there are 3 types of mitigation:- limitation (includes ultimate prohibition), procedures, training.
If we take the case of an aerobatic pilot flying at an airshow you can see what mitigation is in place. So why am I saying this? Well I am trying to bridge the gap between Dave Burke and Pagen01 who are both partially right….Procedures include airshow procedures, training includes aircraft type, aerobatics, limitations include gates min speed etc.

At the end of the day, even the safest activities with the most mitigation will still one day lead to an incident if you do them long enough/enough times….add in wild cards and it throws all stats out of the window. There is a chain to any adverse event…it needs to be broken.

A world where there is minimal/no risk would be a boring place. I, for one, would not want to live there!
I shook Todd’s hand when he walked thru the crowd in 2005 after his act. It was amazing. I salute him and all airshow performers. I cannot criticise what performers do or how they do it.
No-one sets up an aviation act and approaches it with a ‘don’t care’ attitude.

I am very sad at all deaths in aviation/at airshows and really feel sorry for those left behind….this thread was started to cover these tragedies and at the end of the day…that is what they are.

I think lines are getting a bit muddied here.
The way I see it is if I choose to do something dangerous without involving others or putting them at risk then that is my own choice so if I choose to participate in motorcycle stunts on my own field I can do whatever I want as long as I make sure I am well away from any innocent bystander.
If I choose to take part in a dangerous activity involving others I have a duty to make sure that my actions do not cause unreasonable risk to others participating or spectating. As an example those who race in the Isle of Man are aware of the dangers and possible consequences as are those who officiate and an overwhelming majority of the spectators. No one wants to see anyone pay the ultimate price but the risk is there. If you say would I do it the answer is that if I had the funds and resources I would like to have a go BUT if I got out there and felt I was lacking the competence to ride properly in those conditions and as a result my actions were likely to pose an unreasonable danger to other competitors or spectators I would have a good think about whether I should continue.
If I had the ability to fly as an airshow act I would rightly expect my projected “act” to be viewed by a safety board and would modify anything that they judged to be unacceptably dangerous to present before the public.
The person performing the Stearman to helicopter swap was obviously happy with the risks involved but if I were a member of the safety board I would not have allowed that act to have been performed in the UK unless the stuntman had a way out if he failed to complete the change. Obviously someone in the US felt differently. Sadly the stuntman paid the ultimate price because things went wrong and undoubtedly left his family and a lot of paying customers traumatised by his death.
At the end of the day if you put something in front of the paying public it has to be “safe” in that the risk of injury or worse to the paying spectators is minimised (ie don’t fly over or towards the crowd) and the risk to the participants has to be managed.
Having read the postings about the Bearcat I felt that it was inadvisable to carry out that manoeuvre at that height in a heavy fighter because there was no room for a plan B if it all went wrong but in a modern aerobatic mount there may have been a good chance of recovery although events of the past week have proved that this is not always the case. I would not have wanted to risk flying such a manoeuvre in something as rare and desirable as a Bearcat which is quite impressive enough flying more basic aerobatics. Maybe the issue is fly a Bearcat to show off the aeroplane and fly a modern aerobatic job to show off the more extreme of your aerobatic skills.
Airshows rely on attracting the public to make money. If we have accidents which injure and traumatise the public through the irresponsible actions of some participants then ultimately we will scare away the paying punters because you can be sure that the media will use every accident as an excuse to sensationalise thereby promoting the idea that airshows are unacceptably dangerous and the greens will join in with their view that airshows needlessly pollute the planet and add something along the lines that attending might just get you killed as well so don’t attend.
There were some great acts in the 60’s and 70’s but looking back one or two did make you catch a breath and hope that the ground didn’t come up to meet the pilot and his aeroplane. Unfortunately in quite a few cases pilots did run out of sky and/or luck but that level of accidents is not regarded as acceptable now just as we no longer have regular deaths in F1 as the cars and circuits are much safer. We have all had to move with the times.

If this was a teenager jumping from a motorbike to a car in front of his mates on an estate he would be posted all over youtube and up for a Darwin Award, but because this guy did it from a plane it is seen as professional.

Really..?
I feel sorry for you that you obviously abhor anything dangerous, and presumably as such have never tried anything similar.
In my time I’ve tried all sorts of stupid stunts–still do on occasion when I get the chance.
it’s part of being alive–same with those guys who were killed–they were doing it because they loved it.
Long may it remain so.
I’m with Bomberboy on this one.
Andy

The thread I linked to earlier on Wix about the the amount of accidents is getting a bit heated…….

Only since someone started mentioning Bearcats! 😉

In the case of the Skyraider/Mustang -I don’t believe for one minute that safety procedures had any hand in the outcome! The Skyraider could just as easily have knocked the rear fuselage off the Mustang and put it in a vertical dive and similarily have the Skyraider loose control. Luckily due to a parachute and the fact that the pilot was able to gain control of the Skyraider we didnt have fatalities -however no kind of procedures could regulate for that event.

You mean a safety procedure like “look where the hell you are going”? I think that might have had a hand in the outcome….

The thread I linked to earlier on Wix about the the amount of accidents is getting a bit heated… & a quite few display pilots & ground crew are posting….

Luckily due to a parachute and the fact that the pilot was able to gain control of the Skyraider we didnt have fatalities -however no kind of procedures could regulate for that event.

You are right, we were lucky that there was no fatal outcome to the incident you refer to, but I think that what pagen is trying to say is that because certain rules and regulations are put in place before anybody is alowed to perform at an airshow and should an incident occur, there is a good chance that those involved in the incident will be kept to a minimum.
This is as opposed to letting performers perform how ever they like which is likely to be more risky with a greater chance of something untowards happening and therefore potentially involve more people.

A good example would be that pilots know they cannot infringe the crowd line rule for example, for if they do they will potentially be called down immediately and may even be subject to further measures, so they ensure they do not breach the line and certainly not with deliberate intent.
Now if that rule was not in force and pilots were to be allowed to do just what they want, I believe there is a very good chance that riskier moves would ensue which would also put the public at greater risk more frequently, where if an incident were to ensue, would also more likely involve a greater number of people.

They may not be perfect, but I certainly believe that good appropriate rules work and I believe our records demonstrate this fact.

I do sometimes find myself a little torn between watching something flying impressively but safely and watching something that is fitting the stupid/too risky (& therefore potentially more risky) title, but is extremely impressive and spectaculor to watch.

For a lesser example, if the vulcan dispays and doesn’t carry out a steep climb and over vertical wing over, I am somewhat disappointed, but it’s less risky.
But, if it carry’s out a very steep climb and a overtical wing over as I want it to do, I am satisfied, but it’s more risky

It also begs me to ask a question, when was the last time an airshow spectator (who was in a designated spectators area), suffer an injury or even worse?

I can think of two examples where air display performances have deviated from the display given previously and there are probably more examples.
In the case of the Skyraider/Mustang -I don’t believe for one minute that safety procedures had any hand in the outcome! The Skyraider could just as easily have knocked the rear fuselage off the Mustang and put it in a vertical dive and similarily have the Skyraider loose control. Luckily due to a parachute and the fact that the pilot was able to gain control of the Skyraider we didnt have fatalities -however no kind of procedures could regulate for that event.

Sorry but they aren’t the same thing at all, one has measured risk and even then the pilot has to demonstrate that his routine is safe to organisers.
The stunt doesn’t seem to have any safety measures at all and therefore organisers can prevent him from displaying.

To clarify I’m not talking about the aerobatics, I’m talking about the stunt.

If you go drag racing at an organised event/show you have to wear a harness and a crash helmet, or else you don’t race, so even if the driver doesn’t mind being thrown clear of a crash and ending up as a mess in front of the crowd he can’t anyway. The same sort of controls are used in airshows, JDKs last post puts things better than any here.

The Mustang/Skyraider duxford event proves more than most how safe airshows are, a potentially fatal accident was avoided became an incident because of two things;
safety of the event, ie having a dead side for circuits, not flying toward a crowd, and from the flyers point of view, ie both well trained and quick thinking enough to deal with situation, including handling an aircraft with a good portion of wing missing and being being quick thinking enough to successfully parachute out.
The stunt guy didn’t have any back up it seems.

Exactly what control does an airshow organiser have over an aircraft once it’s in the air? Little or none ! If a pilot decides to do low level aerobatics and kill himself there is nothing a tonne of legislation can do about that ! The only way you can make an aircraft perfectly safe is to park it on the ground.

Whilst airshow regulation from the 1950’s might have helped – I don’t believe for one minute in the case of something like the Skyraider /Mustang incident that if the Skyraider pilot had lost control of it the rules and regulations would have prevented a nasty outcome . In many of the incidents this year there has been a very close margin between incident and potential fatality.

So in essence why should we stop a trained stuntman(in the case of the wingwalker) if he knows the risks involved and chooses to carry on . The same applies to any display pilot anyone who enters the cockpit knows that fate can play its hand .

Postman ?

I have had a spell at that in the past

Dictator ??

Hmmmm an unusual thought when asking someone what their job description is! :rolleyes:

You’re going to have to give us some kind of clue.

I could, but then I’d have to seek you out and dispense with your mortal being. :diablo:

Perhaps at the end of the day I am just an uniformed forumite wishing to start up trouble :diablo::diablo: so i’ll leave it for you to ponder on.

I really wouldn’t know where to start.

Traffic Warden ? Park Keeper ? Postman ? Dictator ??

You’re going to have to give us some kind of clue.