Duxford to ban aerobatics???

Hi Bruce,

I think Ant was reffering to the official AAIB accident report on the Mosquito regarding the ‘wingover’.

Yes, thats fair – trouble is as soon as these things head skywards, my right eye closes, as it is a bit sensitive, so I miss half of whats going on anyway!! So I probably have a bias!!

Cheers

Bruce

Originally posted by Bruce
A well flown flat display is often more impressive than aerobatics. A good pilot can keep an aeroplane in view of the crowd at all times without having to enter into aerobatic manouevres.
Bruce

I think I’d modify that to say that a well flown flat display is more impressive than a badly flown aerobatic one, but can never match up to a well flown aerobatic routine. If an aircraft is capable of aeros, then that is how it should be flown.

We are, however, all entitled to our own opinions.

Moggy 🙂

A couple of Mosquito points from the above:

RR299 had completed its display and was on the climbout when the engine quit. It was not performing a wingover. As has been mentioned it had insufficient height once it had recovered from the spin – it actually span, was recovered, then span again, recovered again, both engines picked up but had no flying speed so crashed.

Another 150 ft and it would still be here.

It was completely destroyed, and all of the remains were scrapped.

RS712 is not having wings remade in New Zealand or anywhere else. I understand there is some delamination, much of this is probably the fabric covering coming loose on the airframe. It has never been recovered, so this is highly likely! Kermit keeps a maximum of eight aircraft licensed at any one time (TomW correct me if I am wrong), and the Mossie is not high on his list of priorities!

Anyway, my two pennorth – A well flown flat display is often more impressive than aerobatics. A good pilot can keep an aeroplane in view of the crowd at all times without having to enter into aerobatic manouevres. One of the finest displays I ever saw was Charlie Brown flying a flat display in BM597 at Salisbury Hall – very, very good.

Bruce

I am not sure that I understand the logic behind listing aircraft that have crashed within non-aerobatic situations and using that to attemptt to justify the continuation of warbird aerobatics.
Risk management is always going to be a compromise. Is there anyone on the forum that thinks that warbird aerobatics is as safe as a straight, level flypast?
In the long term, having no warbird aerobatic displays will reduce the number of accidents and even save lives. (to test this theory, pretend that warbird aerobatics were banned at airshows 20 years ago)
Although I would be personally dissapointed, how many airshow visitors would decide not to come because of this single issue? very,very few.
Yes, if you take it to an extreme, you ban the flying of warbirds full stop, but this is where the compromise comes in. If we can make warbird airshow flying safer but still have a thriving airshow circuit in the UK, then why not?

again, just my 2 pence

Originally posted by aj_march
Has anyone pointed out that neither of the L39s or the Blenheim were actually doing aerobatics, or going back Black 6? I can only think of the Firefly crash that involved them!

Obviously don’t remember the P38 crash then?

Hmmm

Ant, although the wingover is listed and described in Neil Williams book Aerobatics, most pilots refer to it as a positioning manouver. If you look at a WWII aircraft during a display, aerobatic or non aerobatic, the wingover is usually part and parcel of their sequence.

However, it can be as dangerous (as illustrated with the Mosquito) as any of the manouvers people normally associate as aerobatic ones. Any twin with a high single engine saftey speed has to be careful during this manouver because if the airspeed is allowed to get below the single engine saftey speed and one fails, it’s usually guaranteed to come a cropper.

Also in an aircraft such as a Mustang, the wingover is where you can find yourself in trouble as well. With the speed decreasing and the pilot pulling it can lead him straight into the buffet which, given the Mustangs dislike of being flown in this condition, isn’t such a good idea. Indeed I believe the former Spencer Flack P51 Sunny VII was a victim to this after it went stateside.

So, I still can’t see the logic behind those who say ban aerobatics in vintage planes. If all the accidents that happened at Duxford & everywhere else involving historic aircraft had been caused whilst they were doing aerobatics, then maybe I might agree.

However, as it stands I can’t really see the need.

As I pointed out in my previous post and by JasonP51D, we still aren’t sure what changes will be taking place at Duxford airshows so maybe we are all jumping the gun.

Lets hope so.

Just my 2£ worth!

Cheers

Paul

The Way forward??

Obviously not much is known yet about the IWM’s official position – I was hoping someone who was in the know might have the inside track on whether there was a ban in the offing.

I have e-mailed the IWM today asking for clarification of their position as to act on speculation would be premature.

However it seems to me if a ban is proposed perhaps those of us who are against it could launch some sought of counter campaign (perhaps in conjuction with some of the operators at Duxford).

What worries me the most is the hysterical coverage in the media – I for one will be writing to the Cambridge Evening News tommorrow to severley criticise their coverage.

Why don’t they cover they put the number of car accidents, rapes, burglaries etc on the front page of their newspapers.

Just my late night ramblings – what do think??

VBR

Jason:confused:

If you go to …

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/grou…hcst?n=5258&l=3

… you can read all about the accidents that occur in the U.K. A large proportion of them are caused by inexperienced student pilots on bland training aircraft. Only a tiny number relate to historic aircraft accidents.

Maybe we should ban PPL training to cut down on the number of accidents? I say that in jest. The problem is the accidents involving historic aircraft are just more visible.

GASCO – the General Aviation Safty Council look at these accidents all the time. They are constantly looking for ways to improve safety. If anything needs to be done they will be the ones making the decisions.

Has anyone mentioned display authorisations yet?

I think we should just wait until some form of official statement is made and then we will know what it is that we’re commenting on.No offence to anyone,but we don’t have the facts to work with at the moment,so this whole thread is based on conjecture. Give it time and I’m sure the picture will become clearer.

“People seem to forget that the much missed BAe Mosquito never did an aerobatic display. It had very strict limits on both speed and airframe limits (250kts max, +2 g & no intentional negative) so that kind of made an aerobatic display a no-go yet it still crashed?”

The Mossie was lost when an engine lost power during a wing-over,initiating a spin from which there was insufficient hieght to recover.IMHO, I would count a wing-over as an aerobatic manouvre.

Aeros may add interest, but is that worth the risk to the a/c & crew. Would Jo Public, who make the majority airshow audience, notice if a Firefly wasnt doing aeros, but a Pitts was?

I would much rather see a rare a/c flying gracefully & conservatively than not at all, minimising the risks of being airborne.

This year seems to have been particulrly bad though, and as its the silly season, it isnt surprising the media are having a fit.

There are supposedly brand new wings being manufactured in New Zealand for Weeks’s Mossie.

No other flying Mossies unfortunately. Bae Mosquito was totally destroyed (sadly in the true meaning this time – virtually nothing re-useable left). Weeks RS712 in Wisconsin has not flown in some years and there are rumours of delamination problems so it may not fly again without major work.

Firstly we are not sure what the changes at Duxford and the implications to other shows are going to be.

Secondly, the ban Aerobatics thing does not wash with me.

For a start do you ban aerobatics for all types or just the Historics? If you say all, then you are saying goodbye to a number of major acts. I mean the Red Arrows would be grounded for one! 😉

If you say just the Historics, then you have to ask why? Are they at more risk than more modern, less rare types? Are the pilots not up to displaying such aircraft in this manner?

If you look at the accidents that have happened at Duxford over the last few years, they did involve Historics, but only two of them were doing aerobatic manoeuvres at the time. :confused:

People seem to forget that the much missed BAe Mosquito never did an aerobatic display. It had very strict limits on both speed and airframe limits (250kts max, +2 g & no intentional negative) so that kind of made an aerobatic display a no-go yet it still crashed? The Blehneim was not doing aerobatics when it had an accident yesterday. The CAF Heinkel, TFC’s first Kingcobra, PL983 and TE566 were not doing aerobatics, yet they still crashed.

Flying by it’s very nature has risks and given the way the aircraft listed above were lost, I fail to see how banning aerobatic displays will cut down on the number of accidents involving this type of aircraft.

I suppose the real question we should be asking is “Should we fly them at all”?

But that’s another story!

Cheers

Paul

Unfortunately with the best will in the world cannot make life totally safe. However the press, and television in particular, seems to think that you can and you do it by banning lawful activities or scare the mindless proles so that they all sit safely at home mindlessly watching the media and not go out.

Because you cannot make life totally safe does not mean that you cannot take sensible and reasonably practicable measures to control the risks you are dealing with. I believe that the CAA and everyone at Duxford does that. If you knowingly fly a plane in a dangerous condition or do something stupid then you deserve the book thrown at you, if not the media should be told where to go.

I say move the motorway!

PS Careful what you say about civil servants, some of us know how to read.

I think guys a ‘ban’ as such will happen soon anyway. If you examine the number of warbirds lost in the last ten years which have involved aerobatic manouvers and then compare that to the rate at which insurance cover has increased and you will see
that they will become impossible to insure .
If aerobatic’s for warbirds were banned at air displays I don’t
think it would make a dramatic effect on the numbers of people
visiting events. Personally I would travel to see a Spitfire or Hurricane fly regardless of the type of flying it did. Often I think
the non-aerobatic displays of Spitfires are far more moving and encompass the spirit of the machine perfectly.

I think its the right decision, although I appear to be in a minority!

Its show the airfield / IWM are trying to do somehthing, which is probably more important, due to the ignorant press / readers. It LOOKS like they are trying, so it _may_ appease the anti aircraft lot.

Secondly, since seeing the RR Spit crash at Woodford during a loop & the P38 in 1997, I have wanted warbirds & crews to stop looping & any manuaveurs with signifcant downward momentum. I know they are not _really_ aeros, but they are precious & so are the crew. I am happy to attend a show & see wing overs & fast passes from these (often) unique, and leave the aeros to the Pitts, Su28 etc.

Originally posted by EN830
May be as they are obviously the most dangerous parts, take offs and landings should be band !!!!

I thiink that the press are already working hard on this one as well as quite a few other associated parties.

Silver Spitfire is TD248 yep thats the one, never was one on registrations. Thanks for that.

As for flying round the village, I know that if I even thought about flying over Duxford then I would get shot. We have a big notice on our briefing board warning of this and I know the main man in the tower would advise against it. The circuit is turning before Rectory Road and past Ciba (or whatever they are calling it now) or straight onto finals over the BP garage and Volvo.

I must admit there are a few ‘my balls are to big for this plane’ boys that do over fly but trouble is they cant flare their planes with bulges that big.

You are right though, it must be made very apparent in both Duxford briefings and the VFR guides what the procedure is.

Best place to be with an engine failure is over Duxford, you would glide clear!!

TD248 had a landing accident on 11/05/01 where the pilot flared rather too high – is this what you’re thinking of?