Snowbirds down

Icebound wrote:
The Minister's remarks were in response to the usual probing by
mindless
reporters bringing up the aging hardware, 10 million annual cost, and
past
accidents (like 5 deaths since 1971, now doing 60 shows a year.). In
the
chronology, the media even included a pilot killed in a car accident,
just
to fatten it up (that would make 6).

Ignoring the car accident, we're looking at 5 fatal accidents over the
course of 33 years, with a team of what, 11 pilots in any given year?
That's less than 400 pilot-years, and 5 fatalities. So what we're
looking at is a flying activity where even the most experienced pilots
(1300 hours in military jets is the MINIMUM to be considered) have less
than a 99% chance of surviving any single year. By contrast, there are
around 600,000 pilots in the US, and less than 600 fatalities (not all
pilots) annually.

Looking at it from another perspective, 60 shows a year (less in the
past) and 9 airplanes (less in the past) is AT BEST still well under
100,000 total hours flown, including repositioning flights. The Nall
report shows an overall GA fatality rate of 1.33 per 100,000 hours.
These guys managed 5 in less than 100,000.

One has to wonder why, given no-expense-spared training and
maintenance, and using only the most capable and experienced pilots,
this demonstration team can't even match the depressing statistics of
GA as a whole. Now I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that safety
isn't the most important thing - not even as important as putting on a
good show for the crowd - but before you rush to the defense of the
Snowbirds saying it should be business as usual after the
investigation, be sure you're comfortable with that too, because the
numbers don't lie - they're not a safe operation by any reasonable
measure.

The problem is that even some military grumble that this is not a
*military*
unit, and they are right, it isn't.

I enjoy watching a good aerobatic demonstration as much as the next
guy, and I'm quite willing to pay for the privilege (and have) but as a
taxpayer I too would question whether millions of tax dollars should be
spent on an activity that is demonstrably dangerous and of no military
value. Plenty of aerobatic demonstration teams exist without taxpayer
support - why can't this one?

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message

One has to wonder why, given no-expense-spared training and
maintenance, and using only the most capable and experienced pilots,
this demonstration team can't even match the depressing statistics of
GA as a whole.

Because it's a dangerous sport.

Now I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that safety
isn't the most important thing - not even as important as putting on a
good show for the crowd - but before you rush to the defense of the
Snowbirds saying it should be business as usual after the
investigation, be sure you're comfortable with that too, because the
numbers don't lie - they're not a safe operation by any reasonable
measure.

Compare it to motorcycle racing.

The problem is that even some military grumble that this is not a
*military* unit, and they are right, it isn't.

I enjoy watching a good aerobatic demonstration as much as the next
guy, and I'm quite willing to pay for the privilege (and have) but as a
taxpayer I too would question whether millions of tax dollars should be
spent on an activity that is demonstrably dangerous and of no military
value. Plenty of aerobatic demonstration teams exist without taxpayer
support - why can't this one?

Plenty of aerobatic teams that fly jest?

moo

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
Icebound wrote:
The Minister's remarks were in response to the usual probing by
mindless
reporters bringing up the aging hardware, 10 million annual cost, and
past
accidents (like 5 deaths since 1971, now doing 60 shows a year.). In
the
chronology, the media even included a pilot killed in a car accident,
just
to fatten it up (that would make 6).

Ignoring the car accident, we're looking at 5 fatal accidents over the
course of 33 years, with a team of what, 11 pilots in any given year?
That's less than 400 pilot-years, and 5 fatalities. So what we're
looking at is a flying activity where even the most experienced pilots
(1300 hours in military jets is the MINIMUM to be considered) have less
than a 99% chance of surviving any single year. By contrast, there are
around 600,000 pilots in the US, and less than 600 fatalities (not all
pilots) annually.

Looking at it from another perspective, 60 shows a year (less in the
past) and 9 airplanes (less in the past)

Well, not that many less. Their average, inception to 1999, was 56 shows a
year. They have then had 90 in 2000 (their max), and something near 60 per
year since... I don't have all the exact numbers..

is AT BEST still well under
100,000 total hours flown, including repositioning flights. The Nall
report shows an overall GA fatality rate of 1.33 per 100,000 hours.
These guys managed 5 in less than 100,000.

One has to wonder why, given no-expense-spared training and
maintenance,

This is the Canadian military. There is no such thing as
"no-expense-spared", although there IS care, skill, dedication and
ingenuity.

and using only the most capable and experienced pilots,
this demonstration team can't even match the depressing statistics of
GA as a whole. Now I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that safety
isn't the most important thing - not even as important as putting on a
good show for the crowd - but before you rush to the defense of the
Snowbirds saying it should be business as usual after the
investigation, be sure you're comfortable with that too, because the
numbers don't lie - they're not a safe operation by any reasonable
measure.

I am pretty comfortable with it, as long as they are, hence I will wait for
the investigation. They know better than us whether the risk is acceptable
to them.


The problem is that even some military grumble that this is not a
*military*
unit, and they are right, it isn't.

I enjoy watching a good aerobatic demonstration as much as the next
guy, and I'm quite willing to pay for the privilege (and have) but as a
taxpayer I too would question whether millions of tax dollars should be
spent on an activity that is demonstrably dangerous and of no military
value.

Is that a criteria? Military value?

The Snowbirds safety record is certainly comparable to the Blue Angels. The
Blue Angels have had one training/show death for every 14 million
spectators, while the Snowbirds record is 1 for 20 million spectators.

Plenty of aerobatic demonstration teams exist without taxpayer
support - why can't this one?

Icebound wrote:
This is the Canadian military. There is no such thing as
"no-expense-spared", although there IS care, skill, dedication and
ingenuity.

There are also 10 full-time professional mechanics for 9 airplanes.
That sure sounds like "no-expense-spared" to me.

I am pretty comfortable with it, as long as they are

As am I. I fully support their right to accept whatever level of risk
is acceptable to them. Let's just not kid ourselves about what that
level of risk is - when the reporters point out how many accidents
there have been, these are not numbers taken out of context. The
accident rate is pretty bad - comparable to motorcycle racing, BASE
jumping, and similarly hazardous activities. The difference is, the
Canadian taxpayer isn't funding motorcycle racing or BASE jumping
teams.

Is that a criteria? Military value?

Sure. I guess I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that the proper
function of taxation is to pay for things in common that we can't
reasonably pay for individually and which are necessary for all, like
the common defense. I don't believe entertainment falls into that
category, much as I enjoy that particular form of entertainment.

The Snowbirds safety record is certainly comparable to the Blue
Angels. The
Blue Angels have had one training/show death for every 14 million
spectators, while the Snowbirds record is 1 for 20 million
spectators.

That's certainly an interesting way to asess safety. The implicit
assumption here is that it's OK to have more fatalities if you draw
sufficiently bigger crowds, as this will make your death/spectator
ratio lower. Not that I have a problem with that, mind you - I simply
want the assumption out in the open where it can be examined. It will
certainly make a less-popular but much safer act that only ever had ONE
fatality look a lot worse because the spectator numbers will be lower.

In any case, while the comparison with the Blue Angels is reasonable, I
certainly never meant to imply that the Snowbirds were less safe than
the Blues nor in any way inferior. I've seen both acts, and while
they're very different they're both great to watch. If it makes you
feel better, I don't like my tax money paying for the Blue Angels
either - though I will happily buy a ticket to a performance.

Michael

"Michael" wrote

Snip here and there

I guess I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that the proper
function of taxation is to pay for things in common that we can't
reasonably pay for individually and which are necessary for all, like
the common defense. I don't believe entertainment falls into that
category,

Michael

It does fall under the category of a very powerful recruitment tool, and
that IS necessary for the common defense.
--
Jim in NC

"Michael" wrote in message
ups.com...
Icebound wrote:
.... snip...

The Snowbirds safety record is certainly comparable to the Blue
Angels. The
Blue Angels have had one training/show death for every 14 million
spectators, while the Snowbirds record is 1 for 20 million
spectators.

That's certainly an interesting way to asess safety. The implicit
assumption here is that it's OK to have more fatalities if you draw
sufficiently bigger crowds, as this will make your death/spectator
ratio lower. ...snip...

That was not the purpose of the comparison.

The purpose of the comparison was to indicate that their safety record is
similar if not better than other aerobatic teams. This made me wonder about
the safety record of "private" aerobatic teams, for which little data is
available. And it also made me wonder whether it was fair to compare the
record of aerobatic teams with complex shows... whether private or not....
against GA statistics.

As for government funding.... as I said before, governments fund many other
way-less-useful projects (and not just a piddling 10 million). Here is one
that not only entertains both the participants and the spectators, but
generates endless good-will and visibility for the Country and the Military.

"Icebound" wrote in message
...

"Michael" wrote in message
ups.com...
Icebound wrote:
... snip...

The Snowbirds safety record is certainly comparable to the Blue
Angels. The
Blue Angels have had one training/show death for every 14 million
spectators, while the Snowbirds record is 1 for 20 million
spectators.

That's certainly an interesting way to asess safety. The implicit
assumption here is that it's OK to have more fatalities if you draw
sufficiently bigger crowds, as this will make your death/spectator
ratio lower. ...snip...

That was not the purpose of the comparison.

The purpose of the comparison was to indicate that their safety record
is similar if not better than other aerobatic teams. This made me
wonder about the safety record of "private" aerobatic teams, for which
little data is available. And it also made me wonder whether it was
fair to compare the record of aerobatic teams with complex shows...
whether private or not.... against GA statistics.

As for government funding.... as I said before, governments fund many
other way-less-useful projects (and not just a piddling 10 million).
Here is one that not only entertains both the participants and the
spectators, but generates endless good-will and visibility for the
Country and the Military.

Your comments on the teams are consistent with my experience.
Although I realize you are discussing the Snows, let me just speak just
a bit on the Thunderbirds, as I've been actively involved in their
history and their mission for many years. The situation for the Snows
will be unique to them of course, but the basic gut comments would be
similar I'm sure.
First of all......In my opinion at least, absolutely NO meaningful
comparison can be made between the scenario involved in jet team
formation aerobatics and any general aviation accident data base. It's
like comparing apples and oranges. I wouldn't even argue this point with
anyone.
As for discussing the team's value to a nation;
I worked closely with the Thunderbirds back in the mid seventies during
the fuel crisis when the team was under close scrutiny by the military
budget hounds. During that period, we looked at all the aspects of the
TB involvement in the American scene. We went over hundreds of documents
and reports trying to nail down a specific value for the team's worth to
the nation in toto. The recruitment issue was the easiest. We had
figures. It was impressive!
The public relations issue was much more complicated to nail down. The
Thunderbirds maintain a concept of people to people contact that they
have used successfully both at home and internationally since their
conception on May 29th 1953. We added up the overseas tours, the hours
flown, the millions of people exposed, and finally, after discussing the
issue with the powers that be in Washington, representatives of several
foreign nations, and the Thunderbirds themselves, we finally discovered
that the actual public relations value of the Thunderbird mission as a
means of internationally reaching the hand of American friendship to the
average man and woman in the street throughout the world was
incalculable!
I sincerely hope, and I have every reason to believe at this point
anyway, that the Canadian government is smart enough to come up with the
same conclusion that we did concerning the team's values, and will
continue to fund the Snowbird mission.
There is one factor in the Snowbird issue that we don't have here in the
U.S however. The Snows, notwithstanding the incorrect assumption of one
poster in this thread, do operate on a fairly tight budget as compared
to our teams in the United States. The Canadian forces just don't get
the funding we do down here. Since Col Philip began the Snowbird
mission, the funding issue has been hard coming. The Tutors have been
meticulously maintained. I know, I flew #10 myself. But they are getting
old, and the team should really get the upgrade they have been seeking.
I remember when our own Thunderbird team went in back in 82. The whole
team at once; out at Indian Springs. The talk was that it was all over.
The team would never fly again. I personally talked to Gen Creech at TAC
about the team's future. There was never any doubt. The government got
totally behind the mission and the team got F16's to replace the T38's.
The Thunderbirds were given a LOUD vote of confidence by almost every
member of the House and Senate.
I sincerely hope the Canadian government does the same for the Snows.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for email; take out the trash

In a previous article, "Icebound" said:
As for government funding.... as I said before, governments fund many other
way-less-useful projects (and not just a piddling 10 million). Here is one
that not only entertains both the participants and the spectators, but
generates endless good-will and visibility for the Country and the Military.

And far better for the country than another country club in the ass-end of
nowhere that just happens to be the Prime Minister's home riding.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
God was co-pilot
But then we crashed in mountains
I had to eat Him.

That's certainly an interesting way to asess safety. The implicit
assumption here is that it's OK to have more fatalities if you draw
sufficiently bigger crowds, as this will make your death/spectator
ratio lower. ...snip...

That was not the purpose of the comparison.

But it's a necessary assumption for the comparison to be meaningful.
So do you agree with it or don't you?

The purpose of the comparison was to indicate that their safety record
is
similar if not better than other aerobatic teams.

But it doesn't show that unless you accept the above assumption. For
all you know, the other teams have way fewer accidents but draw smaller
crowds (not that this is the case, but based on the numbers you quoted
it could be) or have way more accidents but draw larger crowds.

This made me wonder about
the safety record of "private" aerobatic teams, for which little data
is
available.

On the contrary - both in the US and in Canada, every accident
involving a private aerobatic team member is public knowledge, and is
investigated. It's just that no private aerobatic team ever racked up
five. Government teams, on the other hand...

And it also made me wonder whether it was fair to compare the
record of aerobatic teams with complex shows... whether private or
not....
against GA statistics.

Depends what you mean by fair. If you mean that the flying involved is
more demanding and thus can be expected to result in more accidents -
well, I agree. The same can be said of any accident that begins with
"Hey, y'all, watch this." The only difference is the size of the
audience.

As for government funding.... as I said before, governments fund many
other
way-less-useful projects

I'm not in favor of them either, and I don't think that's a good
argument.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
ups.com...
That's certainly an interesting way to asess safety. The implicit
assumption here is that it's OK to have more fatalities if you draw
sufficiently bigger crowds, as this will make your death/spectator
ratio lower. ...snip...

That was not the purpose of the comparison.

But it's a necessary assumption for the comparison to be meaningful.
So do you agree with it or don't you?



Oh, sure I agree with it.

It is not much different that having 50,000 automobile fatalities per year,
but we accept that as "OK" because auto travel is useful and necessary.
Well, maybe all that auto travel is not all that necessary, but it is
extremely difficult to make that judgement.

Similarly, these performances may be doing some more or less "good", whether
in terms of the economic impact of thousands of visitors, or simply
providing people a few minutes of awe and enjoyment.... also extremely
difficult to judge for value.... and so about the only judgement of value
that we have, is a count of their "satisfied customers".

In both cases, nobody suggests that the safety record should not be
better.... but it is what it is, we expect that the Powers are doing as
much as reasonable to improve it, and as long as those directly involved are
okay with it, then so am I.


As for government funding.... as I said before, governments fund many
other
way-less-useful projects

I'm not in favour of them either, and I don't think that's a good
argument.


It ceases to be a good argument, only when Governments cease funding idiotic
projects. That is unlikely to happen in my lifetime, YMMV.