mark_pilkingtonAlex,
thanks for that lin, an interesting site that re-confirms James with the first prize for “Dakota the State:
Transports were named after “Counties or districts of the British Empire,” which led to Avro York, and when US aircraft were obtained, to Americanized names such as Douglas Dakota.
wonders if an email to Boeing would shed any light on who dreamt up the DACoTA? theory, and when? as its seems very unlikely when viewed against the simple example above and when reading that website’s explanation of the very complex RAF system developed over many years for naming everything else.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonQuote:
Originally Posted by Mark_pilkingtonI dont think we should tolerate (or applaud that), I dont think we should tolerate someones, (or lots of spectators lives) being put at risk
Can you explain how spectators lives were put at risk?
Just interested.
Moggy
Moggy,
Yes – I can explain “how” in the portion of the quote you have cut and pasted. (see below)
No – I cant explain “how” spectators lives were put at risk? at the RIAT Typhoon display?? I dont think I have implied anywhere in my posts in this thread that I thought that was the case??? and I dont think I have seen details from others that would suggest they were?? and certainly not intentionally in the portion of my post quoted by yourself?
your cut and paste in its full context is from my post of 19th July 2005 07:40, and reads more fully as :
The “Showing Off” by organisations – anyone – increases the frequency of “accidents” both near miss and fatal, and that will kill off the airshows.
I dont think we should tolerate (or applaud that), I dont think we should tolerate someones, (or lots of spectators lives) being put at risk by placing aircraft so close to safety limits – purely for an afternoons entertainment, (that should be reserved for combat.)
I am not sure my Grammar is perfect, nor my English Teacher would agree with my style, but my intention in that paragraph was to speak “generally” of the increasing need for “Airshow” demonstration of aircraft to be at increasingly smaller limits of safety to make it more exciting, to make it more attractive to the General Public, to attract more gate takings, to simulate modern or wartime combat manoeuvres, to “show off” the full performance capability of a new aircraft to taxpayers or prospective purchasers etc, increasing the risk of accidents, (both near misses or hard hits).
Therefore impacting on the future of airshows (insurances rising etc) and that the purpose of Airshows are to provide an afternoons entertainment not to risk the lives of the pilot, the safety of the aircraft or spectators.
This has been the point of all of my posts on this subject? and I continue to believe we should not tolerate, support or encourage that.
I do not recall making any comments in my posts? in this thread regarding any threat to spectator lives in this specific “Typhoon” incident, I am not aware there was any, my concerns related to the safety of the demonstration routine, the “near miss” accident that did occur and the obvious risk to the pilot and aircraft, and the follow on impact on insurances, viability of airshows etc etc etc (sounding again like a broken record)
In all of this I wish to confirm I do not think the pilot is the only one who should be concerned or learning from this accident to try and avoid a future repeat.
My first post was primarily concerned at our own attitude here in this forum to be applauding the quality of the photo’s rather than being concerned about the near miss accident it recorded, while other threads in this same forum complained about the rising costs of Airshows, and the rising costs of aircraft Insurance – they are all linked!
No doubt someone will now take offence to something above, I believe I have been on my soapbox enough on all this, I have no wish to continue debating or defending my position.
However I stand by my own words, posted under my own name, and am happy to clarify any poor expressions of my thoughts/position if unclear, directly via PM.
I am still entitled to my opinion, and my concerns (even if I am wrong??) and am happy to hear others (to learn how I am wrong) and to hear more facts from the future incident report about what happened and how it will be avoided in the future and how other display managers will apply that to other demonstrations of totally different aircraft etc
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtondarren,
Excellent pics, and a plausable reason as to why the Typhoon pilot has “consumed” much of its safety margin in recovering at the “bottom” of the manuvoure, indicating much skill and expertise in doing so, without disproving some equipment failure or other cause of the problem in the first place.
Yes the display probably had an adequate safety margin, for most of the time, for that recovery so much of the safety margin was consumed that it became very thin.
And Yes, there are some failures that will cause a Typhoon to fly like a brick, regardless of the safety margin – flameout of engine etc.
But this extra information is still leaving me with the same view, the “Airshow” has encouraged the “demonstration” of this aircraft in so tight safety limits that the margin is approaching “reckless” – I never said the pilot WAS the “Show-off”.
The “Showing Off” by organisations – anyone – increases the frequency of “accidents” both near miss and fatal, and that will kill off the airshows.
I dont think we should tolerate (or applaud that), I dont think we should tolerate someones, (or lots of spectators lives) being put at risk by placing aircraft so close to safety limits – purely for an afternoons entertainment, (that should be reserved for combat.)
I would still rather see a one-off historic aircraft, etc do a tight turn at 1000 feet, or a high speed straight and level “FLYING”, than to see them ONLY in Museums on the ground, because we reduced the safety margin of operation to increase the “quality/excitement” of the display.
Just because we have lots of Typhoons, (or Typhoon pilots) and the pilot is safer because of a bang seat, we should not operate at a tight safety margin of operation to increase the “quality/excitement” of the display to “Show Off” our “New Toy”.
I still believe that while we all want Airshows to be entertaining, the closer we allow demonstration flying to push those safety limits, the more often they will be exceeded and more often the risk as seen by the Insurers will be increasing – and so will their premiums – killing off the warbird operators that we all come here to encourage and support.
And any of us can come to such conclusions and opinions, or debate them, without having the need to be qualified by many hours in Typhoons or any other aircraft.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonJames,
I assume all the C-47’s are post January 1942 when the first C47 flight occurred (so Dakota I’s are post Jan1942?) so that focuses on the Impressed DC-2’s in the RAF as Dakota II’s being perhaps the first “Dakotas” into RAF Service?? with perhaps the name being allocated for future use by the Dakota I’s some time prior to delivery off the production line?? , explaining how a DC-2 is a later “mark” Dakota than a C-47?
Thanks for the look inside your Big Book of Aeroplanes 😀
regards
Mark P
mark_pilkingtonSteve,
Maybe I learnt to spell Dakoda wrong in the first place (and no I am not getting out the Beatles White album to see if rocky Rachoon lived down in the black hills of Dakota…or Dakoda…) I will surrender and write it out a 100 times on the black board :confused:
Why didnt they just call it a GooneyBird and be done with it?? 😉
regards 😎
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonJDK,
I felt it was plausable simply because of the “buy UK” focus in the mid 1930’s within the Commonwealth trading block, and to be fair, assumed the US spelling for the state was “DAKODA”? (but thats where John Lennon was shot in New York etc).
So I too agree the “Dakota” State is a strong first, and the native tribe a good second, and the DACoTA an interesting one to ask someone at the Boeing?? site, and “last” until proven otherwise.
I didn’t recall where it came from when I posted, and was rather surprised to find where it was?? and I hadnt recalled it being as “corporate” a site as Boeing, let alone one with a “Douglas” relationship, I would love to know how they came to put forward a theory such as this, and have an origin of the name so different from the usual RAF sources used?
(Interestingly, if you didnt know the origin for use on your website, you wouldnt need to offer an explanation at all would you?, its rarely attempted for any other type?? in any case??)
anyway, I am still hopeful of getting more data on the earliest use of the Dakota name within the RAF?
James, I am still looking forward to catching up locally tooo, perhaps in hte next two weeks???
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtondragline
There is no doubt many of us would have expected the bang seat to be used, and not questioned a decision to do so, he is both brave and skillful to have stayed inside and “willed” the thing back into the air, especially given the risk to others if it did go in, and regardless of the obvious outcome for him in that situation.
I am not quite sure why there is a need to be derride the opinions of others who do not fly? – I have/had a licence, but I dont fly Typhoons at all and will never have the flying skills of this pilot?, I do enjoy watching airshows from the fence.
I also look forward to hearing from the RAF what did go wrong, and it seems to most that something did?
Regardless of the log book hours of those who post here, they have a right to an opinion, and to have it informed or corrected by the available information?, this is not a “pissing” competition, someone – at least one person was at risk of death or injury.
We should learn from previous near misses and crashes, both are accidents!, just one is more fatal than the other, and avoid either happening again.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonJDK,
I had to go and find the source of my DACoTA suggestion, in case I had got that confused as well:
Douglas C-47 Skytrain (1941-1946): In 1941 the DC-3 was selected as the standard transport aircraft for the U.S. Army Air Force. Designated C-47 Skytrain, the only major changes were a reinforced fuselage floor and the addition of a large cargo door. As a supply plane the C-47 could carry 6,000 pounds of cargo. As a troop transport it carried 28 soldiers. As a medical airlift plane it could accommodate 14 stretcher patients and three nurses. Every branch of the U.S. military and all the major allied powers flew it. The U.S. Navy version was the R4D. The British called it the Dakota, a clever acronym comprised of the letters DACoTA for Douglas Aircraft Co. Transport Aircraft. For all its official and unofficial names, it came to be known universally as the Gooney Bird. By the time production ended in 1946 more than 10,000 had been built. C-47s remained in service long after World War II. They played a critical role in the 1948 Berlin Airlift and saw action in the Korean and Vietnam wars.
surprisingly sourced from the official Boeing Image Site
http://www.boeingphotostore.com/source/Detail.aspx?L1=support&L2=&imageId=1985811&action=&ss=
I still favour the State or Native Tribe origins, but I did find this one rather novel and more surprising given Boeing are effectively the “manufacturer”, I have no idea where this site has got the idea from?? as I hadnt ever heard/ read of this anywhere else? thats why I raised it earlier.
Anyway my main interest was to learn if the RAAF DC-2’s were the “cause” of the need to introduce such a name? given they werent’ called such in Australia, I was however mislead into that by the “note” referenced to the film.
The Canadians appear to refer to C47’s as Dakota’s but seem to have recieved their “first” ones in January 1943 with the formation of their first specialist transport unit 164 Squadron, this is a full year after the first C-47 flew so I assume the RAF received Dakota’s much earlier than the RCAF?, and also ahead of the lend lease Dakota/C47s that the RAAF recieved in Australia in February 1943?
Is there any overall RAF “type” and RAF Serial website anywhere that allows you to see when an aircraft or type were first introduced into service??
(I know the RAF number system is a block allocation system and therefore much more complicated the RAAF type based “A” series)
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonGuys,
please accept the following positions from me, that I have tried to make from the beginning,
no I havent seen the official report of what happened, nor claim to know
yes ,there may have been outside influences – equipment failure etc
yes, I am judging this from afar, relying on photos and eyes of others, and that may be incorrect information, an optical allusion?
no, I do not believe the pilot isnt skilled/experienced, he wouldnt be in it otherwise.
but yes, if the comments and photos that were in this thread are in anyway true reflections of what happened, I dont think commenting on the great pictures are the correct focus, I think we should all be concerned as to how close that “just” really was, regardless of why?
I certainly respect the rights of others to have differing opinions and am happy to be corrected by more up to date information, and finally dont want to be seen to attacking any one individual such as the pilot, more the fact that it happened.
I am sorry if my “dismay” and concern (and perhaps poor choice of words) over this near miss has created anger or other emotions in others, that was not my intent, but I am simply a messenger here, dont shoot me just because you dont like or agree with my message??
I look forward to, and enjoy the informative, and sometimes passionate debates on this site, but I do “own my words” that I put here under my own name, for good or for bad.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonsorry guys
I could have sworn I started this all with:
I have not seen a regulatory report of this particular incident but am quite alarmed by the pictures and the near miss!!
Obviously there could be many reasons for this aircraft and its pilot to have been so close to death? (yes he had a bang seat to save him?) equipment failure, incorrect instrumentation reading or setting, poor briefing, direction or attempt to make the display exciting as possible?
In the end all of the demonstration flights are showing the general public something – and it IS all a form of “Showing Off”, thats why we go to what we all call an “AirShow”.
The closer it is to “its best”, or the safe limits are approached the closer it is to becoming “reckless”, the less room there is to allow for windshear, down draught, equipment failure, pilot reaction time etc
He had a routine which shows a brand new type it its best within stricty safety limits and it has been passed by the RAF.
Something (mechanical or Human) went wrong
As a result of a cool head and excellent training he flew the aircraft away from the problem.
I have no idea of the skills of this pilot, or his length of expertise in the type, I dont think it matters at all, on the day he seems to be putting that aircraft somewhere where it should not be!, and I dont think he planned to do that??
Yes I am only viewing this from a distance from a couple of photo’s it could all be an optical allusion, but thats not what the eye witnesses who were present seem to be saying in the comments associated with the pictures?
There was a problem, which because of the safety height the display was authorised at, he was able to recover from……just. If in the work up to diplay the RAF had cleared the pilot to a lower safety height then maybe that wouldn’t have been the case.
I am pleased the RAF can measure their safety heights to such tight tolerances, and the aircraft, its onboard equipment and pilot all operated within that tight margin – “just”, but why does the display have to be to such a tight a tolerance of safety? to push aircraft/pilot to such a limit?? to show it off to us and the general public?
If this had ended in a smoldering wreck in the middle of the runway like many other recent instances there would be totally different comments rising around me in this forum and in the media, why do we have to wait for a near miss to become a total “hit” to shift from “precision/well trained/no real risk” to “condolences/woops/sorry/wont happen again”
The reason Insurance is rising, the reason the cost to run an airshow is rising, the reason Regulators think the “safest” aircraft is one so over regulated that it “stays on the ground” is all from the same source of conduct and risk management.
Again I did not intend to say this pilot is the cause. or the only cause of what happened, and he had more to loose in it than anyone, but something went wrong and I dont think it was just “in” the aircraft?
The “boys” treating these complex/fast 2 tonne flying bricks as “toys” arnt always (or just) the guy who has it strapped to his butt.
I put this problem at all our collective feet, the airshow organisers, the Aircraft/ flight program managers, the aircraft owner – who ever allows such close limits to be pushed, and “We” who applaud it rather than frown at it.
We have lost far too many people, far too many valuable aircraft, historic and other, and also lost far too much credibility with the public, the regulators and the “INSURERS” in recent years to simply let this thing go past as just an interesting set of pics on a website – This type of behaviour threatens our airshows, our historic display aircraft operators – the lot!
it cant be tolerated. We will continue to suffer losses, and insurance premium rises while such things happen!
(sorry if that attitude offends but aircraft are not “Toys for the Boys”)
Again, I’m sorry if I am being unreasonable, hard , etc,but this is serious, at least one human life was put at risk, and that assumes separation to the crowd line was being maintained?
But this pilot, and the aircraft appear to have only “just” survived in every ones opinion, and did not join the many recent others that “have” failed to recover in the “thin safety limits” provided, and if the RAF set that thin safety limit then they are responsible not the pilot?
If this was all completely safe and only an optical allusion of the photographes posted here then I certainly apologise for all for making a mountain out of a mole hill, (and hope that such optical allusions dont exceed the safety limits in the future?? and kill real people and real aircraft – for all our sake)
regards (and sorry)
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonI believe there was at one stage review of the Optica for local production in Australia by consortium or GAF /ASTA directly, and that was the cause of the demonstration aircraft in Australia in the first place?
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonJDK,
thanks for your details and corrections, I actually had to go and listen to the soundtrack again myself to be really be sure it “wasnt” mentioned, and you are absolutely correct while it speaks of “Douglas” it doesnt mention Dakota, (or DC-2, DC-3) so my recollection was obviously confused with the “comment” listed underneath the title listed on the British Pathe site, rather than the soundtrack.
I would agree that unless the original print carried that description with the news reel it is most likely a description applied when these were catalogued for web access.
(I spent hours on this site, when you emailed me the link, downloading lots of freebies so I guess lack of sleep confused me as to the correct source of reference between this film and the Dakota name)
In regard to origins of the word Dakota, I was unsure and simply listed that DACo TA explanation as found elsewhere on the web, I am not sure of its authenticity – hence my question.
I agree the “Dakota” name is one of a complete series applied to US sourced aircraft, and in keeping with Spitfire, Lancaster etc for UK sourced aircraft, and I wasnt suggesting it was a name coined in Australia for the DC-2 because there are no Australian references that refer to these Ex-Eastern Airlines “A30-” aircraft as anything but DC-2’s whereas the later lend lease “A65-” C47’s are all locally known as Dakota’s.
Given the explanation of British names for bombers, Fighters etc it would be perfectly reasonable to use “States” or “Native Tribes” for Transports, rendering the DACoTA explanation unlikely.
The “Australian” aboriginal names of Wirraway, Wackett, Boomerang, Woomera are all local design/production, the local production of overseas DAP Beaufort, DAP Beaufighter, DH Mosquito and GAF Lincoln all retained their “RAF” names. (The “Wirraway” pre-dates the British name of “Harvard” I for the same NA-16 family, but had the RAF “liked” US made aircraft prior to 1939 and purchased Harvards prior to Australia’s licenced production, the local CAC product might have been named “Harvard” as well.
(The Australian Government, RAAF and CAC all copped a blast from the UK for building “American” not “British” aircraft back in 1939, this later lead to the creation of a whole new set of factories etc from scratch, effectively in spite, to build the Beauforts rather than use the already competent CAC to do it)
My main interest was to learn when the first DC3/C47 came into service into the RAF to learn if that caused the adoption of the Dakota name.
I assume names were only created as esch type was contemplated for acquisition?
IE did the British Purchasing Commission, in purchasing US aircraft for the RAF cause the needto create names of “Hudsons”, “Baltimores”, “Harvards” and “Kittyhawks” and “Mustangs” and if so when did they first acquire DC3s/C47s?? for the RAF?
(The purchase of the Australian DC-2’s were undertaken by the BPC in mid 1940. were these the first “British” purchase of the Douglas Aircraft into Military service??)
do you have any leads on the date of introduction of the DC-3/C47 into the RAF? thanks for info todate 😉
regards
Mark P
mark_pilkingtonI have not seen a regulatory report of this particular incident but am quite alarmed by the pictures and the near miss!!
Obviously there could be many reasons for this aircraft and its pilot to have been so close to death? (yes he had a bang seat to save him?) equipment failure, incorrect instrumentation reading or setting, poor briefing, direction or attempt to make the display exciting as possible?
But in simple terms when someone pushes the limit needlessly to “show off” etc its time to leave the “show” circuit – immediately (and probably permanently!)
There is no need in a “non-combat” situation to push any of these aircraft so close to their limits – and the ground in such an unsafe way!
We have lost far too many people, far too many valuable aircraft, historic and other, and also lost far too much credibility with the public, the regulators and the “INSURERS” in recent years to simply let this thing go past as just an interesting set of pics on a website – This type of behaviour threatens our airshows, our historic display aircraft operators – the lot!
it cant be tolerated. We will continue to suffer losses, and insurance premium rises while such things happen!
(sorry if that attitude offends but aircraft are not “Toys for the Boys”)
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonRob,
you havent watched enuf John Wayne movies, its ok for the guys in the white hats to have WMD’s and recover other peoples cultural heritage, they are the good guys, its only the guys in the black hats who arnt allowed!!
(not sure I even trust John Wayne with WMD’s anymore!! 😉 )
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonI believe we may still have one operating here in Australia??
VH-BMC FL OA7 OPTICA SERIES 200 s/n 18
regards
Mark Pilkington
Sign In
