T-34 crash

The problem is the fantasy equation itself. Most of the "customers" who
are attracted to this venue carry a mental visualization of a low winged
monoplane in an enclosed cockpit scenario similar to that seen in the
war movies. The T34 unfortunately, more or less fits this visualization.
It's just unfortunate that the airplane allows so little error margin
when mishandled by the "customers". It's my opinion that these airplanes
could be flown safely by experienced aerobatic pilots AT THE CONTROLS!
But regardless of the experience in the back seat, if the equation
involves a business policy that predicates letting the ham handed guy up
front get beyond what verbal interaction from the back seat can correct
through that pair of ham hands up front within the airplane's error
margins, you have a formula for disaster!
These "instructors" are simply letting these guys go too far without
physical interaction trying to allow the maximum effect and feeling of
being pilot in command by the "customer" up front.
It's a BAD situation in the T34, and I fear more failures in the future
if someone doesn't wise the hell up to this situation.
Being able to fly extremely well is one thing, and most of the pilots
flying these flights as back seaters are VERY good pilots. But there's a
HUGE difference between being able to fly in an ACM environment by
yourself, and being able to stay ahead of an aircraft as slippery as the
34 using only verbal prompting with some ham handed Walter Mitty up
front living out his dream of glory!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for email; take out the trash



"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
k.net...

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
The second bird had the Baron spar. It didn't help. If you
consistently pull back hard and roll, NOTHING will help.

Houston FSDO is investigating. Unfortunately, the only person at
the
Houston FSDO who knew anything about aerobatics (and would have been
competent to investigate) quit in disgust months ago, so don't
expect
much.

It is interesting to note that EVERY T-34 spar failure without
exception has been at one of these weekend warrior outfits - not a
single one in private hands has ever had a problem, including one
18,000 hour T-34 that is used for airshows by the owner.

Michael

I completely agree with this opinion.

The T34 was a problem before the modifications, and will remain a
problem after the mods as long as it remains in the hands of these
fighter pilot wannabe schools.
The issue is well known in the air show safety community. The problem
is nose low rolling pullouts. The T34 is extremely clean and if
handled well is a fine aerobatic airplane. I used one before the spar
mod and had no problems with it.
The instructors flying these fantasy flights are mostly well
qualified pilots. The issue is the entry into the cockpits of the
business equation. Instead of a normal instructor/student scenario on
these flights, you have a "customer" up front and a pilot in back who
has a vested interest in seeing that the "customer" gets maximum bang
for his buck. This is NOT a good situation as the customer begins
"experimenting" with ACM on another airplane in 3 dimensional space
flying an airplane that is as slippery as an eel nose low.
Invariably, these "customers" will end up going deep nose low on the
right side of the envelope as they attempt to get that little "extra"
needed for a tracking solution on the camera sight.
The "instructors" on these fantasy flights are unfortunately always
fighting the same decision; how far to let the "customer" go into a
nose low rolling pullout before taking over the airplane. It's a
fairly well known factor of this type of work that the "customers"
DON'T LIKE IT when you take the airplane away from them. It takes
away from the psychological high they take away from the experience.
It's a two sided coin, and all the pilots who engage in the fantasy
business are aware of it. Most handle it well, and manage to keep the
"customer" out of trouble while at the same time not being obvious
about how they are doing this. Trust me.....this is an ART FORM!! :-)
The use of the T34 for these flights was a bad choice in the
beginning and in my opinion will remain a bad choice. Because the
airplane is so slippery nose low, the error margins relating to over
g in a rolling pullout are just too narrow for this type of work, and
the business equation being present in the rear cockpit can be deadly
in this airplane.
Just my opinion.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for email; take out the trash



Well said! They should be using something more like a Stearman for
these flights.

Mike
MU-2

"Dudley Henriques" wrote
The T34 unfortunately, more or less fits this visualization.

I have done some areobatic instructing in the YAK-52, a plane
that in my opinion is far more suitable for this kind of work
than the T-34 in which I learned to fly.
The YAK is slowed somewhat by the radial engine and the gear
resting outside the wing in the retracted position.
The YAK also came equiped with an inverted fuel system and a
7g wing.

Unfortunately...the YAK must be certificated in the "Experimental
Exhibition" category and therefore cannot be used for hire.

Bob Moore

Bob Moore wrote:
Unfortunately...the YAK must be certificated in the "Experimental
Exhibition" category and therefore cannot be used for hire.

Bob,

I don't think these are 'for hire' operations.

Hilton

Bob,

I don't think these are 'for hire' operations.


Hilton


Even tho the they are not FAR 135 operators, the FAA still considers them a
commercial operation. We needed waivers to fly formation, etc... and the FAA
monitored (at least the 2 companies I was involved with) very closely.


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

Ditch wrote:
Bob,

I don't think these are 'for hire' operations.


Hilton


Even tho the they are not FAR 135 operators, the FAA still considers them
a
commercial operation. We needed waivers to fly formation, etc... and the
FAA
monitored (at least the 2 companies I was involved with) very closely.

Isn't it just a CFI instructing a student in 'unusual attitudes'? That's
not a commercial operation or a 'for hire' operation.

Hilton

Isn't it just a CFI instructing a student in 'unusual attitudes'?

Not all the pilots in these operations are CFI's. Some only have a commercial
pilot certificate....and it still doesn't matter as the FAA doesn't view that
way.


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

"Hilton" wrote

Bob Moore wrote:
Unfortunately...the YAK must be certificated in the "Experimental
Exhibition" category and therefore cannot be used for hire.

Bob,
I don't think these are 'for hire' operations.

Section 91.319: Aircraft having experimental certificates:
Operating limitations.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate—

(1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was
issued; or

(2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.


Bob

In article ,
Bob Moore wrote:



Section 91.319: Aircraft having experimental certificates:
Operating limitations.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate—

(1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was
issued; or

(2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.


It is possible to fly passengers for hire, but it takes a waiver to do
so. The Collings Foundation B-24 is "experimental".

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

Bob Moore wrote:
Hilton wrote

Bob Moore wrote:
Unfortunately...the YAK must be certificated in the "Experimental
Exhibition" category and therefore cannot be used for hire.

Bob,
I don't think these are 'for hire' operations.

Section 91.319: Aircraft having experimental certificates:
Operating limitations.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate-

(1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was
issued; or

(2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.

Bob,

I'm not disagreeing with your assertion that Experimental certificate
aircraft cannot be used for hire. I'm suggesting that "instruction in
unusual attitudes" is neither a commercial operation, nor 'for hire'.

Hilton

"Hilton" wrote

I'm not disagreeing with your assertion that Experimental certificate
aircraft cannot be used for hire. I'm suggesting that "instruction in
unusual attitudes" is neither a commercial operation, nor 'for hire'.

Of course not...if I do it for free, or if I do it in the student's
own experimental aircraft which was the case when I did the YAK-52
thing.

Bob Moore