If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
ANN coverage of the P-51 landing accident at OSH...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ... In the video, it really looked like the situation had already deteriorated more than a quarter mile out, and then it just continued to get worse. (And the assumptions which I initially made are now in serious doubt.) That further amplifies a question that I have for Dudley: You mentioned a distinction military and civilain pilots; and I can think of several possible reasons: the civilians pilots are usually older, less experienced in type, and formation flying is not part of their primary occupation--but I suspect that there is something even more basic that I am leaving out. Peter Yes. It's so basic it has a tendency to lose itself in analysis. The military was just as aware as everyone else about the hazzards associated with section landings. Putting multiple airplanes on the same runway landing at the same time has obvious risks. If lead for example blows a tire on the side the trailer is landing on, the resulting swerve could be a real issue. Judgment and unforseen incursions on the runway are also considerations. The list of possible issues is indeed long and filled with pot holes that could spoil your day. The military however has a problem we as civilians don't have. They have a situation that involves time. In combat, there is always the issue of getting multiple aircraft on the ground quickly and turned around, rearmed and refueled and back into the air again. Also, there is the issue of vulnerability. Fighters slowed down to pattern speeds and dirty are duck soup for attacking enemy fighters. For the reasons I've stated above, the 360 overhead approach was initiated by the military. The objective of this type of approach is to space close in and tight, keep the pattern speeds up, and get the birds down as quickly as possible. Section landings became an integral part of this scenario and was accepted and is accepted even today as a reasonable risk factor considering extensive flight training and awareness of the pilots doing this work. It is worthy of note that even in the military, landing prop tailwheel fighters this way was considered a far greater risk factor than landing high performance nose wheel jet fighters; the reason being the loss of visual cues for the wingman landing next to his element lead. Now enter civilians with a few bucks and flying P51 Mustangs and you have a situation where the time factor is no longer present in the section landing equation. The powers that be who set up training schedules for these pilots in these aircraft know quite well the dangers of section landings in prop fighters. For this reason, organizations like Warbirds of America and EAA and the T34 Formation Training Syllabus specifically note that section landings in P51's are NOT considered to be safe enough to warrant the risk factor. So this is basically how it works. If you own a P51 and you have taken the trouble to seek out and take the suggested training given by people who know what they are doing, you don't attempt section landings in P51 aircraft. There is no law however that MAKES the P51 owner attend these classes. The result I believe, we have seen with this latest accident at Oshkosh. Both of these pilots were good sticks in these airplanes. It saddens me to know that this accident was so damn preventable simply by following basic information and training readily available for pilots flying P51 Mustangs, and in play as we speak. Dudley Henriques That's almost the proverbial "elephant in the room" which has been present so long that it seems to dissappear. I did not even consider the need to get assets quickly inside a ground defense perimeter and on the ground with a minimun loss of speed; and then, if necessary, relaunch an air defense as rapidly as possible. Thanks again for the much needed observations. Peter |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
ANN coverage of the P-51 landing accident at OSH...
My pleasure. Sorry it has to be under such bad circumstances.
DH Peter Dohm wrote: "Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ... In the video, it really looked like the situation had already deteriorated more than a quarter mile out, and then it just continued to get worse. (And the assumptions which I initially made are now in serious doubt.) That further amplifies a question that I have for Dudley: You mentioned a distinction military and civilain pilots; and I can think of several possible reasons: the civilians pilots are usually older, less experienced in type, and formation flying is not part of their primary occupation--but I suspect that there is something even more basic that I am leaving out. Peter Yes. It's so basic it has a tendency to lose itself in analysis. The military was just as aware as everyone else about the hazzards associated with section landings. Putting multiple airplanes on the same runway landing at the same time has obvious risks. If lead for example blows a tire on the side the trailer is landing on, the resulting swerve could be a real issue. Judgment and unforseen incursions on the runway are also considerations. The list of possible issues is indeed long and filled with pot holes that could spoil your day. The military however has a problem we as civilians don't have. They have a situation that involves time. In combat, there is always the issue of getting multiple aircraft on the ground quickly and turned around, rearmed and refueled and back into the air again. Also, there is the issue of vulnerability. Fighters slowed down to pattern speeds and dirty are duck soup for attacking enemy fighters. For the reasons I've stated above, the 360 overhead approach was initiated by the military. The objective of this type of approach is to space close in and tight, keep the pattern speeds up, and get the birds down as quickly as possible. Section landings became an integral part of this scenario and was accepted and is accepted even today as a reasonable risk factor considering extensive flight training and awareness of the pilots doing this work. It is worthy of note that even in the military, landing prop tailwheel fighters this way was considered a far greater risk factor than landing high performance nose wheel jet fighters; the reason being the loss of visual cues for the wingman landing next to his element lead. Now enter civilians with a few bucks and flying P51 Mustangs and you have a situation where the time factor is no longer present in the section landing equation. The powers that be who set up training schedules for these pilots in these aircraft know quite well the dangers of section landings in prop fighters. For this reason, organizations like Warbirds of America and EAA and the T34 Formation Training Syllabus specifically note that section landings in P51's are NOT considered to be safe enough to warrant the risk factor. So this is basically how it works. If you own a P51 and you have taken the trouble to seek out and take the suggested training given by people who know what they are doing, you don't attempt section landings in P51 aircraft. There is no law however that MAKES the P51 owner attend these classes. The result I believe, we have seen with this latest accident at Oshkosh. Both of these pilots were good sticks in these airplanes. It saddens me to know that this accident was so damn preventable simply by following basic information and training readily available for pilots flying P51 Mustangs, and in play as we speak. Dudley Henriques That's almost the proverbial "elephant in the room" which has been present so long that it seems to dissappear. I did not even consider the need to get assets quickly inside a ground defense perimeter and on the ground with a minimun loss of speed; and then, if necessary, relaunch an air defense as rapidly as possible. Thanks again for the much needed observations. Peter |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ANN coverage of the P-51 landing accident at OSH... | Blueskies | Piloting | 22 | August 3rd 07 03:13 AM |
Gear Up, pt 6 - P-51D from 353rd FG at Raydon has a landing accident.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman | Aviation Photos | 0 | April 19th 07 03:31 AM |
Six aboard USS Kitty Hawk injured in F/A 18 landing accident | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 31st 05 10:50 PM |
B-17 landing accident today, Van Nuys, Calif. | Paul Hirose | Military Aviation | 21 | May 17th 04 06:07 AM |
C172S Landing accident | Greg Esres | Piloting | 53 | August 4th 03 03:44 PM |