Background on the TBM Avenger that crashed in Florida a week or so ago

[Kira]

 

[Sid]

So no lessons learnt from numerous warbird crashes. Lack of correct procedures and totally irresponsible pilots put people in danger again. Shades of Reno again.

Some of you will disagree for whatever reasons you have but even idiots like the pilot of the Spitfire who flew low over the journalist/cameraman for nothing but effect....irresponsible people like that get shows and aircraft banned. I love seeing the old aircraft fly but I won't idolise risk taking dickheads. Rant over.

[BluBear]

I do agree for the most part Sidly and I was also shocked to hear about the background of this particular incident the other day. @Jabo this is what I was talking about. The US in particular are in a tricky situation at the moment with so many high profile warbird incidents and losses of life due to negligence etc. 

One thing though, I wouldn't lump the late Ray Hanna (the pilot of that now famous video clip you refer to) into the same category. Far from it, that chap was no idiot. There's enough info out there on his personal history (former Reds leader, low level RAF expert etc), his capabilities and the general high regard in which he was held in the aviation world, specifically historic aviation and what he did for it. In addition, it's important to understand the context of the video. That wasn't a low pass, it was a take off and a trademark of his display in MH434. The filming took place at the end of Duxford's runway and was timed with spotting from the control tower.

If you read about the Old flying machine company and their involvement in films such as Memphis Belle, Empire of the sun and Goldeneye to name a few, you'll see just how well planned they were and how they managed risk in order to offer spectacle. 

I'm not saying that there aren't risk taking idiots in the UK warbird scene, I was at Shoreham in 2015 with Mr P. What happened that day was horrendous and totally avoidable.

Just trying to offer context old bean as I think there's a marked difference between the Avenger incident, Shoreham, Reno and that of Ray Hanna. My rant over

[Sid]

In my view it doesn't matter BB. The vast majority of pilots aren't idiots but the vast majority of pilots don't have Hanna's experience or fly the aircraft he did. He was an exceptional pilot but it doesn't stop incidents happening. You can put many safeguards in place and bring in regulations following incidents but when you are creating a situation like Hanna's take off and many other similar episodes you are still putting lives and aircraft at risk. When in situations that are planned to be close to disaster, and they are close to disaster because of many reasons, but nothing untoward happens then you are lucky it went ok. It looks and sounds good but it is inherently extremely dangerous. It may not have been Hanna that caused any incident but there are those in similar situations that have. Are pilots allowed to do it now? How many compilations of videos on the net are there that showcase death and disaster due to pilot error or failures....loads, I'm sure.

I'm not a risk averse person - I love real flying and riding a motorcycle, I've parachuted and abseiled. My mind set is formed from being in many disastrous, near disaster and life threatening situations, some personal and some observed, including clearing the aftermath of fatal high speed low level AV8B Harrier II crashes and road crashes involving famous motorcycle racers. I have cleared up enough death and destruction caused by qualified/unqualified/downright idiotic people whether it was down to their decision, someone else's or a failure of equipment and it has left it's mark. 

Just not impressed. 

[BluBear]

I totally understand and heartily respect your opinion sir. I don't have anywhere near the experiences you have in that regard, in fact it's likely I'm more risk averse! Parachutes? No thanks!
I suppose really, whilst I agree on the whole with what you're saying, I just mildly object at Mr Hanna being regarded as an idiot. I'd posit that the reason we don't see anyone perform such a low take off in a Spitfire now, isn't a case of not being allowed, but because there simply isn't anyone with that degree of low-level experience or skill on type anymore. He was an outlier. As reads on his grave stone, "Incomparable".
However, I do also recognise and appreciate that performing such manoeuvres could and probably have encouraged actual idiots to imitate, with disastrous results.

[Squawk]

Dan Gryder provided a LOT more info than Juan Brown.  Lots to unpack here.

Initially I was inclined to disagree Sid and give the benefit of the doubt to the pilot, but in this case after hearing the facts, the only thing he did right was not hit someone. WOW I'm amazed VAC haven't wrecked more aircraft.

Flying itself is inherently dangerous but the risks are usually well managed, I would assume much like Fire Fighting.  Procedures/regulations are in place for good reasons, (usually the result of previous unfortunate outcomes)

I understand the old adage "You get what you pay for" But the VAC seems like the keystone cops of volunteer organizations. (making the largest donor the Director of Maintenance, and he's not even a certified mechanic??)

 

But some rare pilots make it look easy, the late Mr.Hanna or Mr. Hover, who have done seeming spectacular things with aircraft, each demonstrated reliably their complete situational awareness with their aircraft and surroundings.  

 

There are way too many "hold my beer" clips on the net of pilots doing insanely stupid things with aircraft, (perhaps some shouldn't have ever received their licenses, a rant for another time) However there are also well flown and scripted clips that from the outside look reckless, but are well planned and well flown. (drunken piper cub pilot demonstration).    I feel that there is still room out there for a little spectacle, if done appropriately.

[Kira]

There's an old saying in aviation: 'The rules were written in blood.'  More often than not, where there's a rule, it's in place to try to prevent more people from killing themselves (and others) than has already happened in the process of doing, or not doing, something in particular.

Then again, there's a reason why the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board i.e. the government organization that investigates accidents and determines their causes; that's all accidents, with all kinds of different sections.  Aviation is just one section.) and the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration i.e. the government organization that writes the rules for aircraft operation within U.S. airspace) are separate entities.  When setting up the agencies, they made damn sure to keep the aviation side of the NTSB totally separate from the FAA.  This allows for the NTSB to make whatever recommendations it sees fit in the name of improving safety without pressure from the regulatory bodies who actually get to write the rules.  As usual, there are plenty of repeated examples of problems that could have been avoided, but weren't as it was deemed too expensive to put a regulation in place against the cost of some property, or even a few lives.