Air show crash

[newyorkguy]

...I withdraw the claim in favor of asking newyorkguy to support his implication that pilot age is a significant factor in pilot error.

Support my implication that pilot age is a significant factor in pilot error? You misinterpreted what I wrote.

Is seventy-seven too old to be stunt flying? In this case I guess it depends on if the cause turns out to be pilot error.

I was responding to this.

He was 77 years old - which, I feel, raises the rather uncomfortable question of just when is enough enough? I'm not saying someone who's 77 can't be a competent regular pilot; but we're not talking about normal flying.

What I was implying was, until we know it was pilot error that led to the crash, it seemed premature to suggest that age played a role. As a matter of fact, I also found that immediately posting a message suggesting Mr. Andreini's age was to blame -- just hours after he suffered a violent death which horrified the unfortunate spectators who had to witness it -- was classless and crude. However, I refrained from making that point and wouldn't have expected the person I'm responding to have agreed with that assessment in any event.

 

[Crossbow]

That is an arguable point. I'd say that flying in combat with others trying to shoot you down is riskier. This type of airshow flying is certainly risky with lots of chance for miscues that is for certain...

I have no clue what caused this accident and neither does anyone else at this point. But, I can speak a bit about age effects on flying skills. There are several factors and not all affect everyone the same way at a specific age. So, I'm speaking in generalities here. Reaction time does decrease with age and that is very important in any type of precision flying. Little cues are not assimilated as rapidly and that can lead to cumulative disaster. Other things occur also. Visual acuity decreases and glasses don't solve all of the problem with this, particularly peripheral vision... G tolerance decreases, as well. These affects all combined have to increase the risk factors involved with this type of flying. There may be other factors, but these are the ones that immediately come to mind.

I don't know at what age all of these factors become significant and neither does the FAA. However, they generally begin to affect most everyone after the age of 40 and progress at different rates for different folks...

I seriously doubt this was a survivable accident for the pilot regardless of the crash response time. The Stearman is an open cockpit design and he landed UPSIDE DOWN on the tarmac and slid a long way grinding off the tail and top of the wings that might have prevented body contact with the ground surface.

Quite true. Combat flying is risker than airshow stunt flying; that is why I was careful to use the CYA language that "... about the most dangerous type of flying there is".

Also it is quite true that it is far too early to determine what actually caused the accident in question. It may have been the age of the pilot, a mechanical problem, spot of bad weather/winds, or some combination thereof.

 

[Belz...]

Most pilot errors are made by pilots less than 77 years old.

That seems like a given.

 

[Checkmite]

In most all vehicle accidents, age has been found to be of no relevance in contributing to an accident (while older people have more physical problems and die in an accident their age and age-related factors are mostly irrelevant in frequency, and besides, these problems are not always related to age: see developmental disorders, history etc etc) but what you're ignoring is that an older pilot has more experience and are generally safer in the air than a less experienced pilot. I cannot believe you are so goddamn ignorant of that but oh well.

There comes a point of diminishing returns. Experience telling you what to do isn't very useful if your body has become less physically capable of performing the required actions in time, wouldn't you agree?

Fact of the matter is this accident probably didn't have an age-related etiology. Mechanical failure, inclement conditions, and pilot error (not related to preexisting conditions but a discretionary failure ie; they weren't reacting to instrument readouts or following pre-flight conditions etc).

Age is so far removed from the etiology of most accidents for pilots or vehicle crashes (yes teenagers are highest risk group for motor accidents but age as a biological condition, hardly) that whenever I hear it I get angry. Believe me, I've been involved in motor vehicle statistics using the National Automotive Sampling System Database. We know what age means and doesn't mean and in general its relationship to vehicle accidents. I can't wait to share your amusing remarks with my dad whose getting close to 60 years old and has been flying since he was in his 20's. What you want to say is that people who are too infirm to fly shouldn't fly (sensible on its face) but infirmity cares little for your age. If my dad crashes in his plane it won't be because he was "too old" it'll be because he wasn't careful or he had some baaaad luck...

Part of the danger is over-veneration of age and its relationship to skill and responsible decision-making. The idea of "older and more experienced, therefore unchallengeably better" is less a reasoning process than a thought-stopping cliche' when uttered so forcibly in such a knee-jerk manner. The natural aging process is the single most contributory factor when it comes to diminished mobility and mental capacity in older individuals.

 

[pgwenthold]

I was at an airshow in Colorado in 96 or 97 where there was a fatal crash. I didn't actually witness it (it was near lunch, and the novelty had worn off for viewers, so the flying was going on in the background), but I remember it was a Korean war era jet of some sort. He was doing an inverted loop, and didn't make it around.

I don't know how old he was.

The Blue Angels were supposed to be there later in the day, but everyone basically left, so they cancelled the rest of the show.

 

[Lowpro]

There comes a point of diminishing returns. Experience telling you what to do isn't very useful if your body has become less physically capable of performing the required actions in time, wouldn't you agree?



Part of the danger is over-veneration of age and its relationship to skill and responsible decision-making. The idea of "older and more experienced, therefore unchallengeably better" is less a reasoning process than a thought-stopping cliche' when uttered so forcibly in such a knee-jerk manner. The natural aging process is the single most contributory factor when it comes to diminished mobility and mental capacity in older individuals.

Okay let me stop you right there. The hell is the "natural aging process" as you define it? As you get older you get mentally/physically slower and unable to physically perform as well as you could when you were younger I would assume, right? Okay, now let me tell you something. That doesn't seem to be a major factor in the frequency of vehicle accidents (definitely a factor in the injury severity) okay so you need to stop thinking like this because it doesn't seem to matter. The evidence so far does not support your assertion that the older you get the more at risk you are for injury while performing tasks. There's multiple reasons for this. The first is that geriatrics adapt. They either don't drive themselves or drive with assistance, or they drive like everyone else because it's not that hard to do anyways. The physical and mental demands when you're driving are not taxing okay. Why you really think that I'll never know but the evidence does not support your pet theory here. If a geriatric is too infirm to drive they usually don't drive of their own volition and the same is true for younger but infirm participants.

I don't know why you think like you do but you need to stop this ageist crap because you don't understand it from a biological standpoint or epidemiological standpoint. Older people are having lower risk for accident frequency more than before and between most everyone who actually researches this it's commonly understood that age doesn't relate to the frequency of accidents. What you're pretty much doing is demonstrating the issues of confounding factors. Your biological age doesn't really mean much to infirmity when factors such as nutrition and chemical exposure, previous injuries, chronic conditions or diseases such as Alzheimers and dementia etc have far more influence on infirmities than the "natural aging process" (at most age is linked to dementia, alzheimers. That last sentence of yours demonstrates your ignorance of actual factors of diminished physical and mental capacity as you age. In short, shortened telomeres don't mean tits here, age-associated disease is an association between the development of diseases as you age and increased vehicle accidents (and in general, accident frequency by age) isn't one of them. People who think like you do need to stop communicating that lest someone takes you seriously.

 

[Checkmite]

In the video that RussDill linked to it looks like (to me) the engine is sputtering and misfiring with irregular pulses of flames coming out of the exhaust.

He flips the plane over and the engine is shooting flames and looks (again to me) like it just runs out of power and crashes into the ground.

Maybe that's just an effect of the oil on the exhaust for the smoke trail?

Sad whatever it turns out to be.

While looking at the video I don't see anything that appears wrong with the engine per se. I believe what you're taking to be pulses of fire are actually sunlight glinting off the propeller; and I believe the smoke trail comes from a dedicated smoke-making device that's often used for air shows and air races.

He definitely seems to not have enough airspeed to do what he's doing. Aircraft have less lift flying inverted as it is; it takes a lot more engine power and it seems to me as if he failed to apply enough for that attitude. Look closely at the plane's attitude after the invert, how pitched-"up" he pulls it, while seeming to bleed off airspeed. The sudden drop of the nose looks to me like an obvious stall.

 

[Checkmite]

Okay let me stop you right there. The hell is the "natural aging process" as you define it? As you get older you get mentally/physically slower and unable to physically perform as well as you could when you were younger I would assume, right? Okay, now let me tell you something. That doesn't seem to be a major factor in the frequency of vehicle accidents (definitely a factor in the injury severity) okay so you need to stop thinking like this because it doesn't seem to matter. The evidence so far does not support your assertion that the older you get the more at risk you are for injury while performing tasks. There's multiple reasons for this. The first is that geriatrics adapt. They either don't drive themselves or drive with assistance, or they drive like everyone else because it's not that hard to do anyways. The physical and mental demands when you're driving are not taxing okay. Why you really think that I'll never know but the evidence does not support your pet theory here. If a geriatric is too infirm to drive they usually don't drive of their own volition and the same is true for younger but infirm participants.

You cannot force an equivalence between the skill, control, and judgment it takes to operate a car on a two-dimensional plane, and that needed to perform aerobatic stunts in an airplane. In truth, you can't even draw an analogy between normal flying and performing aerobatic stunts. Pointing out how well (or not) some older people can drive their cars doesn't have the bearing on the topic that you insist it does.

 

[Checkmite]

Stunt flying at airshows is about the most dangerous type of flying there is. One is flying radical moves quite close to the ground in order to entertain the crowd, and unfortunately both younger and older pilots do get killed while doing so.

The one case that comes to my mind is with Nancy Lynn who was one of the best stunt pilots in the world. She was killed (when she was 50) at an airshow demonstration while her son was the DJ for the event.

As a second issue (but not necessarily secondary; I feel it's just as important), how about the question of "when is enough enough" when it comes to aerobatic stunts, irrespective of the age of the pilot?

In the interest of complete transparency, I think stunts like inverted low-pass ribbon cuts are insane, and I don't mean that in a "wow!" kind of way. I understand that a lot of people are thrilled by things like that; but your average airshow spectator is not a pilot and doesn't care as long as it looks cool. To me, however, it looks stupid and borderline suicidal. Frankly: if deliberately going inverted that close to the ground doesn't constitute "pilot error" all by itself and an egregious failure of good judgment, I honestly don't know what could.

Having gotten that out of the way, let's be a little more objective about things. Right now, airshow pilots are given special permission to violate all kinds of regulations about separation from other aircraft and ground obstacles, large gatherings of people, and so forth. In fact the only real regulation when it comes to these shows that I can think of off the top of my head is that planes are prohibited from maneuvering directly over the spectators. Is this state of affairs acceptable? Should aerobatic pilots be allowed to fly twenty feet off the ground upside down as long as the only person they're in danger of killing is themselves? I'm not sure that's the best policy.

 

[Crossbow]

While looking at the video I don't see anything that appears wrong with the engine per se. I believe what you're taking to be pulses of fire are actually sunlight glinting off the propeller; and I believe the smoke trail comes from a dedicated smoke-making device that's often used for air shows and air races.

He definitely seems to not have enough airspeed to do what he's doing. Aircraft have less lift flying inverted as it is; it takes a lot more engine power and it seems to me as if he failed to apply enough for that attitude. Look closely at the plane's attitude after the invert, how pitched-"up" he pulls it, while seeming to bleed off airspeed. The sudden drop of the nose looks to me like an obvious stall.

Thanks much. I will have to study that video when I get home.

However, please keep in mind that the Boeing Stearman is not a terribly zippy airplane; so even though it may appear to be lacking airspeed the Stearman may still be well within its flight envelope.

I have flown upside-down in a Stearman a few times and I was surpised that it was only about 80 KIAS running at 2900 RPM. Here is a instrument panel photo taken when the plane was inverted.

 

[Reheat]

You cannot force an equivalence between the skill, control, and judgment it takes to operate a car on a two-dimensional plane, and that needed to perform aerobatic stunts in an airplane. In truth, you can't even draw an analogy between normal flying and performing aerobatic stunts. Pointing out how well (or not) some older people can drive their cars doesn't have the bearing on the topic that you insist it does.

You are right! The older and wiser cliche is probably correct regarding airline type flying or typical private type excursions, but this airshow type stuff is not so tame as high flying bus driving. This type of stuff at airshows requires high G (both positive and negative) and rapid maneuvering that is VERY demanding on the human body. Bob Hoover's antics were not so demanding as what this guy was doing, but he still got in trouble with the FAA because of age. There's a limit, but I don't know where it is or who's going to define it.

 

[Lowpro]

You cannot force an equivalence between the skill, control, and judgment it takes to operate a car on a two-dimensional plane, and that needed to perform aerobatic stunts in an airplane. In truth, you can't even draw an analogy between normal flying and performing aerobatic stunts. Pointing out how well (or not) some older people can drive their cars doesn't have the bearing on the topic that you insist it does.

Uh, really tell me why not? Tell me why my understanding of statistical analysis of injuries in automobile collisions, including collecting covariates, distinguishing confounding variables, also while considering factors involving the vehicle (crash reports for example in my case, flight investigation reports for this case be it NTSB or whatever agency collects and reports for personal pilots) can't work here and instead we must defer to whatever the hell YOU think matters here. Yes, you can draw the analogy between these because they investigate similar factors here. I use driving because I'm more familiar with the results and the factors but I'm also familiar with the misunderstanding people have with how age is perceived. You think that advanced age has a major influence on each person's ability to perform a task, it makes sense because you'd think that "Hey they have weaker physical and/or mental capacity compared to someone younger" but that doesn't seem to manifest itself in reality because older people adapt to their age and experience shows a significant increase in performing flight tasks even with age (and that probably works just as well in acrobatics). What you started here was whether this older (and more experienced) pilot may have crashed because of his age, and whether one can be considered "too old to perform that stunt." Based on usual causes of plane crashes ( I listed them before: Pilot error, inclement conditions, and mechanical failure) age as a measure of infirmity probably is a non-factor because it isn't a factor in most research involving accidents anyways.

Also...this is freakin' Eddie Adreini who is not an amateur and has been doing stunts at his age for a long time so no, I don't think that his age played a role in the risk. I find the idea that age restrictions for pilots, drivers, and general stuff like that to be contemptible.

If it means anything when it comes to acrobatics dollars to donuts it's going to be pilot error and at least with general reports age is not a contributing factor to pilot error.

If you want I propose a wager (I got the idea from Multivac). Find studies of pilot age and pilot error and summarize the results and conclusion sections here. Then tell me whether they assuage your concerns about age for pilots. Simulator scores are fine, accident reports are also fine. If what I've said so far, along with your google search contribute to your understanding and you find that what I've said is sensible, I will donate 10 dollars to Charity Water. If they do not and you can make a cogent argument that I can find sensible, I will donate 10 dollars to Charity Water using whatever title you see fit, such as "Checkmite > Lowpro" or something and post the picture of it in the Member section.

 

[Lowpro]

You are right! The older and wiser cliche is probably correct regarding airline type flying or typical private type excursions, but this airshow type stuff is not so tame as high flying bus driving. This type of stuff at airshows requires high G (both positive and negative) and rapid maneuvering that is VERY demanding on the human body. Bob Hoover's antics were not so demanding as what this guy was doing, but he still got in trouble with the FAA because of age. There's a limit, but I don't know where it is or who's going to define it.

dude you know what happened with Bob Hoover and the FAA right? They revoked his license and later gave it back when they realized that he was fit to fly even at his age. He did many more air shows after that... It's a good example of just how poor age-related concerns are used to make a judgment call.

Acrobatics are physically demanding, but why do you think that an older pilot cannot meet the demands? Older pilots aren't fine china...

 

[Crossbow]

As a second issue (but not necessarily secondary; I feel it's just as important), how about the question of "when is enough enough" when it comes to aerobatic stunts, irrespective of the age of the pilot?

In the interest of complete transparency, I think stunts like inverted low-pass ribbon cuts are insane, and I don't mean that in a "wow!" kind of way. I understand that a lot of people are thrilled by things like that; but your average airshow spectator is not a pilot and doesn't care as long as it looks cool. To me, however, it looks stupid and borderline suicidal. Frankly: if deliberately going inverted that close to the ground doesn't constitute "pilot error" all by itself and an egregious failure of good judgment, I honestly don't know what could.

Having gotten that out of the way, let's be a little more objective about things. Right now, airshow pilots are given special permission to violate all kinds of regulations about separation from other aircraft and ground obstacles, large gatherings of people, and so forth. In fact the only real regulation when it comes to these shows that I can think of off the top of my head is that planes are prohibited from maneuvering directly over the spectators. Is this state of affairs acceptable? Should aerobatic pilots be allowed to fly twenty feet off the ground upside down as long as the only person they're in danger of killing is themselves? I'm not sure that's the best policy.

I essentially agree with you.

If it was up to me (and, of course, it is not up to me), I would stop all of these very low altitude air show stunts. Even if the airplane is in perfect mechanical condition, and even if the weather is absolutely perfect, and even if the pilot is physically and mentally perfect, it still only takes a fraction of second for exciting flying very low to the ground to become a tragedy.

I just think it is silly to take those kinds of chances. And if people want to experience the thrill of flying, then there are many other things to do which are very exciting. Take flying lessons, ultralight flying, skydiving, be an observer on an acrobatic flight, and so on.

And to answer your other question ...

As far as I know, airshows are allowed to apply for exemptions to the normal FAA rules such as altitude restrictions and proximty to persons, vessels, and structures. However, I think that the FAA no longer provides exemptions for flying over the assembled crowds.

 

[rwguinn]

While looking at the video I don't see anything that appears wrong with the engine per se. I believe what you're taking to be pulses of fire are actually sunlight glinting off the propeller; and I believe the smoke trail comes from a dedicated smoke-making device that's often used for air shows and air races.

He definitely seems to not have enough airspeed to do what he's doing. Aircraft have less lift flying inverted as it is; it takes a lot more engine power and it seems to me as if he failed to apply enough for that attitude. Look closely at the plane's attitude after the invert, how pitched-"up" he pulls it, while seeming to bleed off airspeed. The sudden drop of the nose looks to me like an obvious stall.

Not sure. The pitch down is a possible indicator of stall, but not sufficient to be definitive . It could be pilot induced
He had plenty of horses--standard in that airplane is 225 hp. He was running 450 hp engine in it.

 

[Lowpro]

Also I might as well put in my two cents from the video (was waiting for my dad's take but we agreed anyways). Gust of wind while inverted during the ribbon cut kept him down...he was screwed. I don't think it was a stall but I think he didn't cancel earlier because he could have stalled.

 

[Checkmite]

dude you know what happened with Bob Hoover and the FAA right? They revoked his license and later gave it back when they realized that he was fit to fly even at his age. He did many more air shows after that...

...and then he grounded himself, because he realized that he was getting too old for that silliness anymore.

On the other hand, Hoover's stunts didn't reach today's level of idiotic.

 

[Morchella]

I watched the Reno Air races several times but I missed the big crash in 2011 where 10 were killed and many more were injured. I am surprised that crashes don't happen more often. The races look insane. Planes fly at low altitude around pylons with a crowd below. I watch from a hillside at a safe distance. It reminds me of boxing where the objective is to knock out the opponent inflicting brain damage. Adults have the right to do any risky sport they want but people who are risk takers are more likely to die.

 

[Lowpro]

...and then he grounded himself, because he realized that he was getting too old for that silliness anymore.

On the other hand, Hoover's stunts didn't reach today's level of idiotic.

At his discretion and his retirement from professional aerobatic performances doesn't mean he is "too old for that silliness". Also do you know how old Bob Hoover was when his license was pulled? You should check...

Also I think he probably did do inverted ribbon cuts.

 

[Ranb]

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avia...gnee_types/ame/fasmb/editorials_jj/bobhoover/

Interesting article about Bob Hoover's medical certificate.

My finding that Mr. Hoover did not meet the medical standards, and the subsequent revocation of his medical certificate, was based on the diagnosis of a significant cognitive deficit and evidence of cerebral pathology. While reports from Flight Standards inspectors regarding sub-par performance at an airshow led to the special medical evaluation of Mr. Hoover, it was the medical evidence that resulted in his disqualification.

Mr. Hoover requested reconsideration. In view of the length of time since his last evaluations, I agreed to consider the special issuance of a medical certificate, to be based on the results of a new assessment. Repeat studies revealed some unexpected normalizing changes in his clinical condition.

Ranb