Jim Leroy went in today...

"Kyle Boatright" wrote:

The story I saw makes it sound like he basically ran out of altitude
during a pullout and pancaked to the ground...

Which is why I wish they would institute a 200' (or whatever) minimum
altitude for airshow performers. First, I don't like seeing airplanes
*that* close to the ground. It makes me uneasy (which I realize is part
of the draw - but I still don't like it). Second, in many shows, the sight
lines are terrible for low, low, acts anyway.

It makes me cringe to see airshow performers flying 50' above the deck,
or 25', or whatever limits they are pushing. I often wonder who this "draw"
is
intended for? Do actual pilots enjoy watching their fellow airmen push the
envelope like this? Or is this intended to hold the interest of the
non-flying
public?

I also think that aviation is ill-served by such risk-taking. Every accident
offers another opportunity for a grandstanding politician to call for new
restrictions on our privileges.

-Mark

In article ,
"Mark G." wrote:

It makes me cringe to see airshow performers flying 50' above the deck,
or 25', or whatever limits they are pushing. I often wonder who this "draw"
is intended for? Do actual pilots enjoy watching their fellow airmen push
the envelope like this? Or is this intended to hold the interest of the
non-flying public?

The ACES program is a failure when it comes to experienced performers.
While it has probably saved many lives of those new to airshow
performing, the more experience performers seem to have forgotten the
lessons they have been teaching while actings as instructors.
When the program was implemented in the 1980's as a partnership between
the FAA and the airshow industry (ie - ICAS), it was originally a very
rigid cirriculum which dealt with aircraft performance under a wide
range of conditions. This was heavily diluted during the comment period.
Now may be the time for the FAA to take the program back.
ICAS certainly hasn't shown any initiative in improving the safety
record of the more experience performers.

I was just walking through the gates when this accident happened. One
moment two airplanes were flying around, and the next moment there was
black smoke. The airplane descended below my viewing angle.People
standing right by the runway saw the whole thing. It makes me wonder
if it is really necessary to get down that low just for the benefit of
the spectators standing by the runway perimeter. The majority of
people standing at a distance won't see anything at such low
altitudes.

But there is a video on youtube that made me curious. It shows the
aircraft spinning downwards, then at the moment when it should be
pulling up, it enters a cloud of smoke. Is it possible that he flew
into something that obscured his visibility and he was unable to tell
his altitude?




On Jul 29, 12:01 pm, john smith wrote:
In article ,
"Mark G." wrote:

It makes me cringe to see airshow performers flying 50' above the deck,
or 25', or whatever limits they are pushing. I often wonder who this "draw"
is intended for? Do actual pilots enjoy watching their fellow airmen push
the envelope like this? Or is this intended to hold the interest of the
non-flying public?

The ACES program is a failure when it comes to experienced performers.
While it has probably saved many lives of those new to airshow
performing, the more experience performers seem to have forgotten the
lessons they have been teaching while actings as instructors.
When the program was implemented in the 1980's as a partnership between
the FAA and the airshow industry (ie - ICAS), it was originally a very
rigid cirriculum which dealt with aircraft performance under a wide
range of conditions. This was heavily diluted during the comment period.
Now may be the time for the FAA to take the program back.
ICAS certainly hasn't shown any initiative in improving the safety
record of the more experience performers.

"Richard Riley" wrote in message

I was at Osh in 92 when Jimmy Franklin fliew the Kitfox in the
airshow. He'd done his routine in his black Waco and scared the
audience with an inverted pull out at 5 feet or so. The story went
around that Phil Reed - the then new owner of Skystar - told Jimmy
he'd give Jimmy an extra $10 per foot of minimum altitude during his
show. If he kept it above 100 feet, he'd make an extra $1000.

He made an extra $30.

I saw that performance in the Kitfox and really, really enjoyed it. It was
very quiet due to the muffled Rotax. It was very graceful and smooth,
because that's the only way to fly an extended aerobatic sequence in a
draggy, low powered airplane.

I wish there were more acts like that and less noise/smoke/hardcore stuff.
I don't even pay attention to that stuff anymore at airshows. In fact,
those acts give me plenty of time to read through all the materials I picked
up earlier in the day at the vendor booths...

KB

On Jul 29, 1:16 pm, Richard Riley wrote:
I was at Osh in 92 when Jimmy Franklin fliew the Kitfox in the
airshow. He'd done his routine in his black Waco and scared the
audience with an inverted pull out at 5 feet or so.

My stomach would churn watching Jimmy pull the WACO out so low that he
would disappear in the low ground behind runway 18/36. Exciting to
watch, but frightening, too.

Charlie

I am an "actual pilot" and I do not enjoy watching low level aerobatics --
so I don't.

"Mark G." wrote in message
...

It makes me cringe to see airshow performers flying 50' above the deck,
or 25', or whatever limits they are pushing. I often wonder who this
"draw" is
intended for? Do actual pilots enjoy watching their fellow airmen push the
envelope like this? Or is this intended to hold the interest of the
non-flying
public?

I also think that aviation is ill-served by such risk-taking. Every
accident
offers another opportunity for a grandstanding politician to call for new
restrictions on our privileges.

-Mark