Those that partake in aerobatics and go on to display at shows are certain personality traits.
Even the very best can fail and lose their life. It comes with the turf. However comprehensive training and keeping simple routines, understanding the aeroplane, and finally understanding, and following the rules and regulations which are there to protect you the pilot, the crowd, and the aeroplane, should keep everything in check that is manageable and within your control.
When this comes up against the personality, super charged A, it is not easy for a pilot to stand down. However that is what is required when it starts to go wrong.
As a highly experienced aerobatic pilot once said to me – you are up against the ice cream van. Do not lose your life over a cream cone.
Posts moved to the existing thread.
What amazed me, reading the previous reports, is how little time on type these pilots have.
A lot of good questions can also be asked around about who signs them off, and any relevant relationships/connections, including a past in military service. In this case probably hard to avoid because of the ex mil aircraft type.
Seans comment at 3.55 perhaps encapsulates everything we are trying to say.
BeechBaby wrote:
Seans comment at 3.55
Can you help with the link please?
Currency is the problem, as well as the culture around it. These aircraft are so expensive to operate that they (probably) simply do not get into the air unless a customer, directly or indirectly, is paying the bill.
What you almost certainly have is a mates club of ex-military guys where one guy with 2hrs on type a year is signing off another with 1hr on type.
Not saying for a moment that these guys are not very good pilots, but it’s a setup which lends itself to a bunch of Type A personalities making up the rules as they go along and flexing those rules because they know they’re good at what they do.
I agree with the AAIB and based on everything I’ve read I don’t buy for one second that he was cognitively impaired. The jury obviously felt that he might have been.
The alcohol analogy holds, I feel. You pull the G knowing the effect that it might have on you, same as you drink the beer knowing the effect it might have.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
Can you help with the link please?
Sorry it works when I try it. If you search YouTube for Sean D Tucker, flying a Cessna 152
Graham wrote:
What you almost certainly have is a mates club of ex-military guys where one guy with 2hrs on type a year is signing off another with 1hr on type.
Yes and no. To get your initial DA it is with a CAA examiner. It involves initial interviews, a plan of what you want to do and fly, then an actual demonstration once the examiner has agreed that you can actually fly the thing. Time on type, knowledge of type, complexity of routine, is your routine safe and watchable for the audience. Do you understand fully the regs associated with Display Flying etc.
You may have to do your routine a few times with the examiner watching, he suggesting alteration or a different approach, until he is happy to sign you off. You are initially cleared at a higher level, say base at 500’, then after experience cleared lower. This is noted on your DA. I undertook a fairly aggressive hard aerobatic training regime, not on my type, for confidence and to build my experience. That was certainly interesting.
For the DA routine I wished to display I then practised on my type with an aerobatic instructor who was highly experienced in numerous types, including mine.
It is very good experience and certainly hones your flying skills.
Graham wrote:
The alcohol analogy holds, I feel. You pull the G knowing the effect that it might have on you, same as you drink the beer knowing the effect it might have.
I think the key is your use of the word “might”.
You know, or should know the effect alcohol WILL have.
I dont believe with the same certainty the effect of G can be predicted.
The key point, with reference to this incident, is that there remains no evidence of cognitive impairment at the short duration, low g experienced during this flight or indeed during many years of practical experience and scientific investigation, even in that presented as part of the defence in the criminal trial.
Cub, fair enough, in which case it is disappointing that this argument was not better explained or, perhaps, explained at all.
