Air show crash

[Reheat]

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...

Yea Dude, I know what happened to Bob Hoover. I only mentioned him because of the age issue. In no way does what Bob Hoover did or does compare to the Airshow aerobatics under discussion. Hoover's stuff is all done at basically one G, perhaps 1.5 or so. You're comparing apple and oranges related to typical Airshow type stuff. I'm not familiar with the routine done by the subject of the thread, but I do contend that age is a risk factor with the typical stuff done at airshows and your assertions haven't convinced me otherwise...

 

[Reheat]

Also I think he probably did do inverted ribbon cuts.

When? Where? In what aircraft? This ought to be interesting!

 

[Lowpro]

Yea Dude, I know what happened to Bob Hoover. I only mentioned him because of the age issue. In no way does what Bob Hoover did or does compare to the Airshow aerobatics under discussion. Hoover's stuff is all done at basically one G, perhaps 1.5 or so. You're comparing apple and oranges related to typical Airshow type stuff. I'm not familiar with the routine done by the subject of the thread, but I do contend that age is a risk factor with the typical stuff done at airshows and your assertions haven't convinced me otherwise...

I don't see how you can contend age to be a risk factor* here. First of if you want to contend a difference between the aerobatic stunts then that concedes that age doesn't matter for one type versus the other (unless you didn't intend for that). I don't understand how you're claiming what I've said to be assertions (you're begging for aerobatics to be different enough from all other studies involving age after all, that's your assertion). The risk of a crash that Andreini had MUCH greater influences from the classics: pilot error, inclement conditions, and mechanical failure where age doesn't mean a goddamn thing! You, Checkmite, and probably other people are pleading for these stunts to be too difficult for an older person despite the ACE, despite the experience and it is unreasonable.

*EDIT: I really should clarify it as a significant risk factor (that is unbiased, even by the Healthy Worker Effect)

 

[Lowpro]

When? Where? In what aircraft? This ought to be interesting!

Not in his Shrike. I did say that one off the cuff. Between what, 60 years of flying professionally or as an air show participant do you really think he hasn't?

Yes that really is the best explanation for why I said that. I don't know if he did or did not (basically: I dunno) but I'd bet he did. Make a Charity Water bet on it?

 

[Reheat]

Not in his Shrike. I did say that one off the cuff. Between what, 60 years of flying professionally or as an air show participant do you really think he hasn't?

Yes that really is the best explanation for why I said that. I don't know if he did or did not (basically: I dunno) but I'd bet he did. Make a Charity Water bet on it?

As I thought, you don't know much at all about aviation in general and even less about Bob Hoover's career.

Hoover was basically a MASTER of slow flight handling. Of course, he flew jets as an employee of North American Aviation, but he was not into the "stunts" that are so prevalent at many airshows.

The only risky stunt that he ever did that I know about was when he visited an F-100 squadron in Japan and asked to fly the "Dog of the fleet". There was near universal agreement on the designated aircraft and he suited up to fly it. He took-off in it and did a dirty roll on take-off leg. A dirty roll is with gear and flaps although I believe it was a C model, which had no flaps as opposed to the later D model... His engine out stuff in the Shrike, later in his life were not risky maneuvers at all.

As others have said he was probably the "greatest stock and rudder pilot" who ever lived, so far.

ETA: Your cursing is both unnecessary and not appreciated by many folks here, so please stop it.

 

[Spyke]

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; <snip>

I was just coming back to say that very thing. I looked at it on a better computer and I was thinking "those actually look like propeller flashes instead of fire".

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.

Just a causal observer with no flight experience, but I'd also agree with that.

 

[Lowpro]

As I thought, you don't know much at all about aviation in general and even less about Bob Hoover's career.

Hoover was basically a MASTER of slow flight handling. Of course, he flew jets as an employee of North American Aviation, but he was not into the "stunts" that are so prevalent at many airshows.

The only risky stunt that he ever did that I know about was when he visited an F-100 squadron in Japan and asked to fly the "Dog of the fleet". There was near universal agreement on the designated aircraft and he suited up to fly it. He took-off in it and did a dirty roll on take-off leg. A dirty roll is with gear and flaps although I believe it was a C model, which had no flaps as opposed to the later D model... His engine out stuff in the Shrike, later in his life were not risky maneuvers at all.

As others have said he was probably the "greatest stock and rudder pilot" who ever lived, so far.

Ouch, well first off I did know about that F-100 story so give me more credit. Maybe I don't know the value of "risky maneuvers" as you do I'll admit to that. I know more about risk factors though and I know how to interpret them. I know how to assess the evidence and I know when to be cautious of misconceptions such as how age is misunderstood and misused, resulting in poor conclusions. So, now that we've established our nice little bodies of knowledge, why age? Why argue that age is a significant risk factor? Reduced capacity to perform versus a younger pilot? A significant reduction?

Please, explain it to me. Tell me why what I've said previously about how age has NOT been a significant risk factor before going to be so for a stunt pilot (remember what it takes to be a stunt pilot, experience, healthy worker effect...)

EDIT: wait, what cursing? The "goddamn thing!" thing? If so, sorry I'll tone that down.

 

[BStrong]

Noted aerobatic pilot Eddie Andreini died today at an airshow performance at Travis AFB in California. He was flying his Stearman, and the word on some aviation forums is that he was performing an inverted very-low-pass ribbon-cut trick (the plane flies close to the ground, upside down, and slices a vertically-stretched paper ribbon with its wing(s) as it passes). 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.

I know Eddie and his family and flew in the Stearman at least a dozen times over the years. He was a competent pilot and in good health.

He was a good man, and he and his wife raised a good family and for me when the subject of paving or asphalt repairs came up Andreini Brothers Paving was the go-to contractor of choice.

I'll miss him.

 

[Reheat]

Maybe I don't know the value of "risky maneuvers" as you do I'll admit to that. I know more about risk factors though and I know how to interpret them. I know how to assess the evidence and I know when to be cautious of misconceptions such as how age is misunderstood and misused, resulting in poor conclusions.

Since you're so qualified I suggest instead of posting on an obscure Internet Forum, you instead petition the FAA to allow pilots older than 65 to continuing flying in Airline operations. I'm sure if you're as good as you say you'll be successful. I'd love to get rehired and continue flying in that capacity... alright?

 

[George 152]

As I thought, you don't know much at all about aviation in general and even less about Bob Hoover's career.

Hoover was basically a MASTER of slow flight handling. Of course, he flew jets as an employee of North American Aviation, but he was not into the "stunts" that are so prevalent at many airshows.

The only risky stunt that he ever did that I know about was when he visited an F-100 squadron in Japan and asked to fly the "Dog of the fleet". There was near universal agreement on the designated aircraft and he suited up to fly it. He took-off in it and did a dirty roll on take-off leg. A dirty roll is with gear and flaps although I believe it was a C model, which had no flaps as opposed to the later D model... His engine out stuff in the Shrike, later in his life were not risky maneuvers at all.

As others have said he was probably the "greatest stock and rudder pilot" who ever lived, so far.

ETA: Your cursing is both unnecessary and not appreciated by many folks here, so please stop it.

There are two types of pilots. The old and the bold.
Bob Hoover was old and intent on getting older

 

[Crossbow]

One of the worst parts about this is that it looks potentially survivable, however, crews took about 5 minutes to arrive.

Thanks much for posting that video.

I watched it several times and while it is still far too early to tell for sure, but I noticed that while he was inverted his smoke generator kept going on and off. Also, just before the impact, his plane was in a slight roll.

Therefore, I wonder if he got just a bit too much distracted by the intermittent smoke generator and that was the reason for the crash.

 

[Andy_Ross]

We all know older are the best and so are Racing Drivers.

That's why Fighter Squadrons are full of men in their late fifties just like the Formula 1 Teams.

Erm...

 

[Lowpro]

Since you're so qualified I suggest instead of posting on an obscure Internet Forum, you instead petition the FAA to allow pilots older than 65 to continuing flying in Airline operations. I'm sure if you're as good as you say you'll be successful. I'd love to get rehired and continue flying in that capacity... alright?

So wait you were a commercial airline pilot at one point? I mean they did raise the age a few years ago (they basically cut the 60 year old rule to up to 65 and under 60 right?) When did you retire, and did you retire due to mandatory retirement or before that?

Also, thoughts on the 1,500 hour rule?

Also, ignoring your insincerity but there is some research regarding pilot age and their health certification. No evidence of increased risk of accident from NTSB reports or simulators. They also report that up to a certain measure of experience there's no difference in risk at any age, whereas experience has an appreciable risk (that's why i asked about the 1500 hour rule, your thoughts on it as a risk prevention measure but also its effects on incoming new pilots; basically how does it affect the career?). Now the health certification can distort that because pilots can be recertified (unsure of how often they are returned to previous status or downgraded etc) that gives a selection bias, colloquially a "healthy worker effect" so the question is whether the age-associated illnesses (physical/mental) matter; we don't know because we don't get to find out whether the common thought of aging as "degraded physical capacity/mental capacity" actually has an appreciable effect on crashes. Keep in mind however that many medical certification status isn't exclusive to age-related diseases, that's the other selection bias, and one that I think matters more than we often consider.

But anyways what we know is that pilots who are "healthy" based on their certification perform the same regardless of age. We don't have an opportunity to know how much older the pilots can be while still being "healthy" and that's my issue. Targetting age is not targetting health and age is not a proper surrogate. We've found that to be the case in many tasks such as occupational, motor vehicle, extracurricular etc.

I started to kinda go into investigating the NTSB however there's no occupant level information there. Searched pubmed, SAGE, scholar and didn't find anything that indicted age but nothing that analyzed aerobatics vs else. Maybe you believe that age matters here but unless it's effect modification researchers aren't finding much.

 

[Reheat]

Also, thoughts on the 1,500 hour rule?

That is off topic for this thread, but there's not much more to discuss regarding the OP. May as well, put some E into JREF.

I suspect you are talking about the 1500 hours minimum required for Part 121 operations. I actually think it should be higher and in practice it is. Very few are hired with only 1500 hours in the US, most have near double that. Now that an ATP is required for an FO that rule won't be modified any time soon. Many non-US airlines hire at 1500 hours primarily because of limited selection from which to choose.

I won't answer personal questions in detail because there are some 9/11 Truther types that would dearly love to know who I am so that they can harass me or my family. I won't let that happen.

I spent a good portion of my adult life in the USAF flying both fighters and in training operations. Alternated between both fields. I then spent several years flying with an Airline in International operations. While still in the USAF I participated in many airshows all over the world both in actual flying demonstrations and in static displays. One of those was Farnborough in the 1980's.

No evidence of increased risk of accident from NTSB reports or simulators.

Of course not. The NTSB is an accident investigation agency, not a medical examination board. How many pilot are still doing aerobatics at age 77? How many that age are still actively flying? Look, if you'll go back and check, my comments regarding this issue have been mostly related to the type of aerobatics related to airshows. High G precision stuff most refer to as "stunt flying". Airline flying requires a different set of skills as does most private type civilian aviation.

Maybe you believe that age matters here but unless it's effect modification researchers aren't finding much.

You're distorting and expanding what I've said related to pilot age. I'll say it once more. What I've addressed is high G aerobatics and precision airshow flying. I also went into some detail as to the effects of aging on skills required for flying without making a judgement on specifics related to licensing, etc.

I again suggest you take up your argument with the FAA instead of incessantly arguing your point here on JREF.

 

[Checkmite]

Thanks much for posting that video.

I watched it several times and while it is still far too early to tell for sure, but I noticed that while he was inverted his smoke generator kept going on and off. Also, just before the impact, his plane was in a slight roll.

Therefore, I wonder if he got just a bit too much distracted by the intermittent smoke generator and that was the reason for the crash.

It's possible, but I wonder how well a pilot can actually see that smoke generator's operation and whether or how much they actually pay attention to it after turning the switch. It's not a flight-critical system so I would think they just don't; but I don't honestly know.

 

[Reheat]

It's possible, but I wonder how well a pilot can actually see that smoke generator's operation and whether or how much they actually pay attention to it after turning the switch. It's not a flight-critical system so I would think they just don't; but I don't honestly know.

As I understand the story this was his third try to cut the ribbon. He was likely getting frustrated. Keep in mind that he needed to push -1 G to stay level. Depending on the trim setting any relaxation of forward pressure on the stick would result in what we see in the video if he did not have significant forward trim. Maybe he had a cockpit indication of the smoke generator operation. If he switched hands to recycle a switch without significant forward trim or without maintaining forward stick we would see what we see in the video. I doubt that he stalled as the Stearman has a rather slow stall speed and he was OK up to the nose continuing to fall below level flight. Also, it appears that he never achieved level inverted flight after the half barrel roll. A stall or a gust of wind would likely cause a more abrupt nose drop, so i doubt either of those explanations were the cause. Most of these guy will initially push about -2 G's in order to make sure they stop the decent and achieve level inverted flight at the proper altitude. We don't see that in the video. It simply appears that he forgot he was inverted.

At this point virtually anything plausible is a possible cause. RIP

 

[RussDill]

First off you need to do your homework. The source of that graph is here

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/49/1/1

The article, as well as most research, makes explicit that the frequency of accidents in older populations isn't higher and that we already know age does not have an influence on the frequency of primary car accidents.

I'm not seeing that in the article.

Your graph shows fatal vehicle crash involvement, and guess who tends to DIE more related to car accidents...older people. And I am not sure whether that graph is derived from fatality at the scene or fatality after hospitalization (and the time after hospitalization) because again...older people in a hospital are complicated especially given preexisting conditions.

That is a huge oversight on my part. You are correct. We need to look at accident rate per miles driven

http://www.merckmanuals.com/profess...lder_driver/overview_of_the_older_driver.html

"the crash rate per mile for drivers ≥ 70 is higher than that for drivers of all other ages except those < 20 yr"

So not only are you describing the conclusions of that graph incorrectly (the source disagrees with you, reaction time isn't even in that article...jesus dude...)

I'm sorry, I figured the reaction time thing was common knowledge, and if not, easily obtainable knowledge. Note how much faster it starts growing as the age approaches 80.

http://www.utoledo.edu/healthsciences/depts/kinesiology/pdfs/Reaction-Time_article.pdf

you haven't even supported the proposition that reaction time differences based on age plays a role in an increased frequency of plane crashes.

From what I understand, if you are flying a plane normally under VFR or IFR conditions, reaction times don't matter at all. If they do, you have made some sort of grave error. This is in contrast to driving a motor vehicle or doing close to the ground stunt maneuvers in a plane. That is not to say that reaction times were a factor in this crash, as you say, the far more common causes are pilot error or mechanical failure.

 

[Crossbow]

It's possible, but I wonder how well a pilot can actually see that smoke generator's operation and whether or how much they actually pay attention to it after turning the switch. It's not a flight-critical system so I would think they just don't; but I don't honestly know.

Indeed, that thought crossed my mind as well.

I have known a few people who setup their smoke generator with a small header tank in order to make the generator quickly produce smoke. While that system works quite well, it does induce another failure mode that could be problematic if it occurred at just the moment.

Anyway, I have been wondering just what type of smoke generator was on his plane.

 

[Checkmite]

Here's a second video from the scene, showing the (lack of) emergency response after the incident. Initially some people go out to the plane, presumably to help, but then the plane catches fire and they are compelled to move away. They do appear to be frustrated that there aren't any firefighting vehicles around.



Evidently, fire trucks are not required to be staged at air show events. I have seen them at some air shows, but it must not be a particularly stringent requirement - or perhaps the airport having permanent emergency services based somewhere on the field is good enough to fill the requirement and they don't have to be right on the flight line.

For what it's worth, I'm told that Andreini's Stearman was modified, and one of the modifications was an enclosed cockpit. The way it landed, I would say the canopy was almost certainly jammed shut.

 

[BenBurch]

Sad. Seems fairly clear to me he lacked airspeed, but that isn't necessarily pilot error; The fuel filter could have taken that opportunity to partially clog, for example.