Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

("Jerry Springer" wrote)
but then you can still have a plane turn in front of the warbird from
another taxiway, too close for the pilot to notice, which is what seems
to have happened at OSH.

I think you need to go read the full NTSB preliminary report.


http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060804X01093&key=2

"Injuries: 2 Uninjured."

Not trying to do a nitpicking gotcha, but ....


Montblack

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:58:15 GMT, Jerry Springer
wrote:

Convair wrote:

but then you can still have a
plane turn in front of the warbird from another taxiway, too close for
the pilot to notice, which is what seems to have happened at OSH.



I think you need to go read the full NTSB preliminary report.

I read it. It says the RV6 came in from a side taxiway.

"Injuries: 2 Uninjured."

Not trying to do a nitpicking gotcha, but ....


Montblack

You must be talking about a different accident. The one I'm refering
to had one fatality.

Montblack wrote:
("Jerry Springer" wrote)

but then you can still have a plane turn in front of the warbird from
another taxiway, too close for the pilot to notice, which is what
seems to have happened at OSH.


I think you need to go read the full NTSB preliminary report.



http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060804X01093&key=2

"Injuries: 2 Uninjured."

Not trying to do a nitpicking gotcha, but ....


Montblack
Which means what?
RV-6 passenger killed and both pilots and TBM passenger uninjured.

Convair wrote:


"Injuries: 2 Uninjured."

Not trying to do a nitpicking gotcha, but ....


Montblack

You must be talking about a different accident. The one I'm refering
to had one fatality.

The error is in the heading.
The body describes passenger and pilot of the Avenger and Pilot of the RV --
uninjured, passenger of rv killed.
Most of the testimony went against the Avenger including video from a
production company. But I'll leave it to the 'experts' to decide!
John

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Mark Hickey wrote:

Ernest Christley wrote:

A flag on the part of the protagonist moves the responsibility from the
antagonist seeing to the protagonist being seen (any time you move your
vehicle, you're the antagonist, the mover, the doer, the responsible
party). If the Avenger's co-pilot couldn't ride or walk a wing to the
run-up area, stick a bug-eye mirror on a stick or out on a wing
(temporarily). The solutions are simple, abundant, and in use all
around us every day.

With the price and availability of tiny little video cameras and LCD
displays, I can't imagine why anyone who could afford to fly a warbird
couldn't afford to put a forward-looking video system in place (even
if it's only a temporary installtion used for crowded events). It
would cost what - $100? - to prevent blind taxiing.

Mark Hickey

This "solution" requires too much "head buried in the cockpit" to be
practical. If the pilot is looking at the screen, he is not paying
attention to other things of equal or greater importance happening
around him.

I like the idea of spotters better.


The pilot is going to have to watch the spotter as well and is giving away
to the spotter responsibility for the safe movement of the aircraft. I think
any pilot capable of flying a warbird should be able to add a glance at a
monitor to their scan.