Illinois Pilot killed in crash
G. David Frye
Local Champaign-Urbana pilot Joe Frasca died last Saturday in an aircraft
accident. Joe was becoming very well-known in airshow circles for his
aerobatic routine in his home-built "Astrocraft". In fact, he was on his
way back from Texas where he had spent two weeks practicing, then one week
competing, in the national aerobatic championship where he won, for the
first time, a spot on the national team. He was enroute from Texas back
to Illinois, and his fiancee may have been the first to report him missing.
According to witnesses, Frasca bailed out of the Astrocraft at 800-1000 feet
AGL. His chute deployed correctly, but he had not fastened the leg harness
and he separated from the canopy. The Astrocraft crashed into a trailer
park, but no one was injured. Joe's body was not positively identified until
yesterday. He was 34.
The Astrocraft was out of fuel.
The Frasca family runs Frasca International, a manufacturer of aircraft
simulators used in many FBO's around the country and now around the world.
They also own Frasca Airfield, next to the factory, and have been putting
together a museum of old and unusual aircraft. Rudy Frasca, the head of
the family, flies a P-40 that was displayed this year at Oshkosh. Most of
his (many!) children are pilots. According to everything I've heard, Joe
was, in many ways, the most likeable of the Frasca clan. Local people loved
his routine, even though most never knew how spectactular it really was in
comparison to many other aerbatic routines. It was good to hear that he'd
finally achieved national recognition, and doubly tragic that the accident
occurred just after the competition.
There will be a church and graveside service in Urbana tomorrow; arrangements
are also being made for a "missing man" tribute at Frasca Field in the after-
noon.
Matthew L. Ginsberg
>This is not my forte, but here goes:
>
>Local Champaign-Urbana pilot Joe Frasca died last Saturday in an aircraft
The details of the accident appear are reported to be that Frasca
jumped out of his plane and then separated from his parachute. The
plane crashed into a trailer park.
Let me preface what I am about to say by saying that I am sorry for
what was clearly the senseless loss of a skilled pilot. My heart goes
out to his fiancee and to the members of his family.
That said, it appalls me that a responsible pilot would send a ton of
high-speed metal toward a trailer park. If the plane was
controllable, I think he had a responsibility to stay with it.
I know that this is a lot easier to say than to do, and I must confess
that I'm not sure I would have the moral courage to stay with my plane
is a situation like this. But I know that I hope I would.
Matt Ginsberg
G. David Frye
>The Astrocraft was out of fuel.
Lest I regret it later, I should correct this to read, "The Astrocraft
apparently ran out of fuel." The investigation is still in progress, and
(as usual in such cases) there are conflicting eyewitness accounts. It is
too soon to rule out the possibility of some kind of aircraft malfunction.
G. David Frye
Jordan Brown
>If the plane was controllable, I think he had a responsibility to stay
>with it.
Especially since a controlled crash is possibly (in this case, with 20/20
hindsight, certainly) more survivable than departing the airplane with
an improperly secured parachute.
The advice I was given in my acro training was that if the airplane
was controllable it was better to try for the controlled crash than to
use the parachute, and that was assuming a properly fastened one...
phantom
> Matt Ginsberg
It may have turned after he bailed out.
================================================================================
/| LIGHTNING STRIKES !!!!!!!
/ |
/ |
/ |____ Nimoy Pugh
/___ / >>infonode!pughn
| / b14!beanie!ltoon
| / b14!ioproc!mazi
| / b14!scuz_man!mazi
|/
================================================================================
John A. Weeks III
> Local Champaign-Urbana pilot Joe Frasca died last Saturday in an aircraft
There is a lot of this going around lately....
1. The father of airshow performer Jimmy Franklin died in a crash enroute
to the National Championship Air Races at Reno. Franklin was acting as
ferry pilot for the Waco Mysteryship, which was to perform at Reno. The
Waco lost power on takeoff and crashed.
2. The unlimited racer "Tsunami" was destroyed and pilot/owner John Sandburg
killed when the plane crashed on final just short of the runway while making
a fuel stop in South Dakota. Tsunami and Sandburg were returning from the
Reno air races. Sandburg owned a warbird restoration and engine rebuilding
shop near Minneapolis.
-john-
--
=============================================================================
John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 jo...@newave.mn.org
NeWave Communications, Ltd. ...uunet!tcnet!newave!john
Eric Thiele
>gins...@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) writes:
>>If the plane was controllable, I think he had a responsibility to stay with it
>
>hindsight, certainly) more survivable than departing the airplane with
>an improperly secured parachute.
Don't you think it must have been a pretty desperate situation to entice a
competition acro pilot into bailing out?
Maybe there was major structural failure. Maybe it WAS controllable, but there
was imminent danger of an explosion. Maybe he figured it was pointed in a safe
direction (like, just away from Champaign), and the plane managed to find that
one trailer park in the middle of nowhere. Maybe, maybe, maybe...
Let the NTSB figure out the facts. But whatever the cause, the PIC figured it
didn't matter if he stayed with the plane or not. From my safe, cushioned
vantage point, *I* figure he must have had a damned good reason.
Matthew L. Ginsberg
>Don't you think it must have been a pretty desperate situation to entice a
>competition acro pilot into bailing out?
>
>Maybe there was major structural failure. Maybe it WAS controllable, but there
>was imminent danger of an explosion. Maybe he figured it was pointed in a safe
>direction (like, just away from Champaign), and the plane managed to find that
>one trailer park in the middle of nowhere. Maybe, maybe, maybe...
The apparent cause of the crash, at least according to the original posting,
was fuel starvation. This takes care of structural failure and imminent
explosion danger.
There is a lot strange about this accident -- not the least of it being
that an experienced acro pilot had his parachute on wrong. Why did he
wait till 800-1000 feet to jump? Why did he apparently run out of gas
in the first place?
The pilot involved clearly made one very bad decision, involving getting
into the parachute. He apparently made a second that led to the fuel
starvation incident. Given that, I am certainly suspicious of his
third major decision -- to leave an aircraft that subsequently crashed
in a trailer park. Perhaps the original poster could tell us:
1. Was it a trailer park in the middle of nowhere?
2. Any evidence of structural failure, or some other reason to expect
a bailout? (Did the incident occur over a mostly-wooded area at night,
for example?)
3. Any direct evidence of impaired judgement on the pilot's part? (Too
much celebrating after finally getting on the national acro team? I am
suggesting this only as a *possibility*; I'm sure the NTSB is considering
it as well.)
Matt Ginsberg
Jordan Brown
>Don't you think it must have been a pretty desperate situation to entice a
>competition acro pilot into bailing out?
Nope. The fact that he was a competition acro pilot says nothing at all
about his reaction to an engine failure. Had he ever had one before?
Why would you think he wouldn't panic? KFI (a Los Angeles radio station)
lost a long-time traffic watch pilot a few years ago to a stupid engine
failure on takeoff resulting in the classic stall-spin-splat. He'd been
doing traffic watch for LOTS of years, and still (apparently) panicced
on the engine failure. It happens.
>Maybe ...
>Let the NTSB figure out the facts.
Sure, it's possible that there was some reason why it was appropriate to
leave the airplane, and the NTSB is the people who will decide what
happened, at which point everybody can decide individually whether or
not leaving the airplane was appropriate. But from the data at hand,
inadequate as it is, it sounds like a fuel-related engine failure.
>But whatever the cause, the PIC figured it didn't matter if he stayed
>with the plane or not.
We'd like to think that, but it wouldn't be surprising to find that he
simply didn't take into account where the airplane would go after he left.
People who are panicced are not very good at making fine decisions like
that. The primal urge is to GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE, and that's tough
to defeat.
>From my safe, cushioned vantage point, *I* figure he must have had a
>damned good reason.
He probably thought he did too, at the time. From my safe vantage,
I don't know if I'd agree that it was a good reason. If I were in
the airplane... I'd like to think that I'd stay in it if I could, but
I couldn't swear that I really would do so.
G. David Frye
me (the original poster) a bunch of questions:
>1. Was it a trailer park in the middle of nowhere?
>
>2. Any evidence of structural failure, or some other reason to expect
>a bailout? (Did the incident occur over a mostly-wooded area at night,
>for example?)
>
>3. Any direct evidence of impaired judgement on the pilot's part? (Too
>much celebrating after finally getting on the national acro team? I am
>suggesting this only as a *possibility*; I'm sure the NTSB is considering
>it as well.)
I have no answers to these questions. I think it was a "rural" area, but
that may only mean that it didn't look like the L.A. basin. It was day VFR.
I qualified my original posting with a followup posting that perhaps you did
not read (hint hint), saying that "fuel starvation" was only a preliminary
diagnosis and the full NTSB/FAA investigation may turn up additional info.
Given the nature of the remains (aircraft and human), it's possible that we
will never know the true story. If I ever receive a copy of the final
report, I'll post it here.
Please don't misconstrue my original note as a criticism. It was meant as
an electronic obituary for someone whom many rec.aviators have probably
seen recently. It's a bit too soon to speculate publicly on possible causes
of the accident, to say nothing of indicting a dead man for actions he may
or may not have taken.
GDF
Matthew L. Ginsberg
>
>I have no answers to these questions. [about the Illinois accident]
>
>Please don't misconstrue my original note as a criticism ...
> It's a bit too soon to speculate publicly on possible causes
>of the accident, to say nothing of indicting a dead man for actions he may
>or may not have taken.
I received the following message this morning from someone local to the
area where the accident occurred. Perhaps it will shed some light on
this ...
From KE...@saturn.uark.edu Wed Oct 9 06:09:06 1991
Return-Path: <KE...@saturn.uark.edu>
Received: from uafhp.uark.edu by t.Stanford.EDU (4.1/25-eef) id AA00137; Wed, 9 Oct 91 06:08:58 PDT
Received: from mailbox.uark.edu by uafhp.uark.edu with SMTP
(15.11/15.6) id AA09736; Wed, 9 Oct 91 08:08:45 cdt
Received: From SATURN/WORKQUEUE by mailbox.uark.edu
via Charon 3.4 with IPX id 100.911009080941.256;
09 Oct 91 08:09:58 -0600
Message-Id: <MAILQUEUE-101.9...@saturn.uark.edu>
To: eri...@i88.isc.com, gins...@t.stanford.edu
From: "Ken Schriner" <KE...@saturn.uark.edu>
Date: 9 Oct 91 08:09:40 CST
Subject: Re: Illinois Pilot killed in crash
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.1c R5.
Status: RO
I posted this earlier, but see now that it only made to the Aviation
Digest, not the entire netnews community. I thought I might be able
to shed some light on what happened by being closer than most folks
reading rec.aviation. Please feel free to post it to the entire
rec.aviation community.
> Local Champaign-Urbana pilot Joe Frasca died last Saturday in an aircraft
> accident. Joe was becoming very well-known in airshow circles for his
> aerobatic routine in his home-built "Astrocraft". In fact, he was on his
> way back from Texas where he had spent two weeks practicing, then one week
> competing, in the national aerobatic championship where he won, for the
> first time, a spot on the national team. He was enroute from Texas back
> to Illinois, and his fiancee may have been the first to report him missing.
This occurred in the town of Johnson, Arkansas. Located between
Fayetteville (FYV, my home airport) and Springdale, Arkansas. The
point of impact was approx 4 nautical miles South West of Springdale
Muni and about 7 nm north of FYV. His fiancee may have been the
first to report him missing, but lots of witnesses (non-aviation) saw
his accident.
> According to witnesses, Frasca bailed out of the Astrocraft at 800-1000 feet
> AGL. His chute deployed correctly, but he had not fastened the leg harness
> and he separated from the canopy. The Astrocraft crashed into a trailer
> park, but no one was injured. Joe's body was not positively identified until
> yesterday. He was 34.
Witnesses (non-aviation) at the scene also stated that the engine
sounded as if it was sputtering. He was not identified until his
dental records could be looked at. The paper didn't indentify the
plane as an Astrocraft. They did state it was a Home-Built
Experimental plane. One paper mentioned it was a kit built plane.
(I don't know anything about Astrocrafts. Are they indeed kit built?
How big are they? Range? Fuel Capacity? Wing span? Glide
capability? Or, a place to get this information would be
appreciated.)
> The Astrocraft was out of fuel.
The witnesses (non-avaition) stated they didn't smell any gas. Local
law enforcement officials stated they didn't smell any gas. I don't
think the FAA has stated anything about fuel yet.
I was flying that morning in the area. I took my mom on her first
flight. We had a great time. Some of my better flying, of course I
had been practicing for this occassion. Dad didn't want to fly.
(None of this is meant in the spirit of second-guessing. Only
reporting what I know to be the facts.) The weather that morning was
beautiful. 60 degrees, dewpoint real low, wind calm at the surface,
a little westerly breeze up higher. A thin layer of cirrus at 25000,
visibility at least 10. The kind of day pilots are at the airport
flying, washing planes, and then flying some more. While we were up,
there was a just the teensiesty of bumps. When I mentioned them to
my mom, she said she hadn't even noticed them.
The terrain within 1 nm of the crash site is rolling hills with
trees, interspersed with several flat, cleared pastures. (Again,
please don't misconstrue my comments as belonging to the "woulda,
shoulda, coulda" catagory. I'm trying to inform, only.)
I usually call the guy (my primary instructor) I rent the plane from
when I get back. (He is a worry wart, but I like him.) After we
flew we ran a few errands and then went home. The phone was ringing
when we came in the house. It was my instructor worried about me and
the plane. He knew there was a plane down, but at that time there
weren't many details. He was glad I was back and I was glad I
was back,... we talked about who had been at the hangars earlier that
we both knew and then we both made some calls. My heart goes out to
the Frascas.
Ken Schriner BITNET ks06054@uafsysb
University of Arkansas Internet ke...@saturn.uark.edu
G. David Frye
gins...@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) posts mail from an Arkansas
pilot describing more details of the crash. He asks:
>(I don't know anything about Astrocrafts. Are they indeed kit built?
>How big are they? Range? Fuel Capacity? Wing span? Glide
>capability? Or, a place to get this information would be
>appreciated.)
It was home-built. I don't know if it was a kit or plans-built. Joe had
access to a rather sophisticated shop, and had an A&P rating in addition to
his pilot certificates. It was billed as a "one-of-a-kind". Joe named it
the "Astrocraft" after his dog, Astro.
I heard some second-hand information that the airplane would have been
very difficult to handle with a dead engine. It had no flaps or trim.
G. David Frye
Tom R. Myers
> >competition acro pilot into bailing out?
> Nope. The fact that he was a competition acro pilot says nothing at all
> about his reaction to an engine failure. Had he ever had one before?
I watched Joe land an airplane with a broken wing this summer. While his
reaction to an engine failure might be panic, I think the wing failure
episode strongly suggests otherwise. I'll be the first to admit that I could
be totally wrong because I didn't witness the engine failure, but I believe
that Joe wouldn't have bailed unless he felt he had to.
TRM N1005E
Mark Stolz
The acro pilots I know have decided well beforehand what they are
going to do if their engine fails when airborne. This is usually based on
their knowledge of the handling characteristics of their airplane and the
statistics of survival of an engine out landing.
Remember most of these are registered as EXPERIMENTAL and may be homebuilts.
They do not handle like your standard Cessna 150! As an example; one friend
of mine who owns a Pitts S2B has already decided that if his engine dies
while in flight, he will bail out. No attempt will be made to land it.
Why, you ask? Well it seems that the stats show that better that 50% of the
attempts to land it without power end up with the plane upside down and the
pilot dead or seriously injured.
So don't take it for granted that its easy to find a field and survive in
this kind of situation. I would also "go with the odds." The airplane can
be replaced. No so simple for people!
Matthew L. Ginsberg
Your friend should have his Pitts taken away from him. To have made
this decision in advance without giving any consideration to the
people on the ground is irresponsibility of the highest order.
The bottom line is that you, as the pilot, have accepted the risks
involved in flying. The people on the ground haven't.
Matt Ginsberg
Matthew L. Ginsberg
that if the engine in his Pitts ever quits, he will bail out. I replied
indicating that I thought this attitude was extremely irresponsibility
becuase of possible danger to people on the ground.
Mr. Stolz sent the following reply to both me and to BBoard:
> I just knew that somebody would come back with this comment! So thank you
>for validating my belief of rec.aviation readers. Now to begin with, what is
>safer?
>
> o Planning on what to do or just "winging it" when it happens?
> o Knowing the characteristics of your airplane or just seeing what will
> happen when it happens?
Well, that depends. If I plan that every time I see a yellow car
acting strangely while driving I'm going to try to ram it and kill the
driver, winging it is better. If I plan a safe avoidance action, then
planning it is better. Your friend's "plan" is more like the first than
the second -- you don't get any credit for thinking about something in
advance if your conclusions are stupid.
> This person is extremely safe. He practices engine outs frequently.
Given the previous post, I guess that means he bails out on a regular
basis. : )
> He
>knows the airplane inside and out. He has talked to the Pitts factory,
>Lycoming and every other system manufacturer on the airplane. It is one of
>the best maintained airplanes I have ever seen. He bought it new and it
>is extremely clean. Everything is in exceptional working order.
Big deal. I *built* my plane, so I really do know it inside and out.
Every serious acro pilot has the sort of knowledge and respect for their
plane that you descibe. That doesn't make them responsible pilots.
> Now back to the posting. Did I say that he would fly the airplane into
>a crowded subdivision? If you read it, I don't think so.. YOU ASSUMED that
>we are reckless individuals with no regard for others. WELL THINK AGAIN!
>I have never seen so many idiots as I have see write in this forum. And
>yes, you appear to be one of them. Jump to conclusions!!
The original posting said this person had decided that if the engine
failed, he would jump. Period. That presumably included from places
in the airport traffic pattern where he could no longer make it back
to the runway. If Mr. Stolz' friend manages to operate his aircraft
without ever doing so over residential areas (including airport
operations), he's living in a different country than I am.
Matt Ginsberg
Jordan Brown
> [ Matt Ginsberg writes: ]
>> Your friend should have his Pitts taken away from him. To have made
>> this decision in advance without giving any consideration to the
>> people on the ground is irresponsibility of the highest order.
>
>a crowded subdivision?
While I don't always agree with Mr. Ginsberg, I don't think he's
jumping to any conclusions... let's take a look at your original article...
> From: m...@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Mark Stolz)
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation
> Subject: Re: Re: Illinois Pilot killed in crash (Two More Crashes)
> Date: 9 Oct 91 20:53:36 GMT
> Message-ID: <776...@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>
> Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
> Remember most of these are registered as EXPERIMENTAL and may be homebuilts.
>They do not handle like your standard Cessna 150! As an example; one friend
>of mine who owns a Pitts S2B has already decided that if his engine dies
>while in flight, he will bail out. No attempt will be made to land it.
That sounds like a pretty absolute statement of his intentions in the
event of an engine failure.
I doubt that your friend would drop his airplane into a crowded area, but
it's not terribly unreasonable to draw that conclusion from your article.
Mark Stolz
> this decision in advance without giving any consideration to the
> people on the ground is irresponsibility of the highest order.
>
> involved in flying. The people on the ground haven't.
>
> Matt Ginsberg
for validating my belief of rec.aviation readers. Now to begin with, what is
safer?
o Planning on what to do or just "winging it" when it happens?
o Knowing the characteristics of your airplane or just seeing what will
happen when it happens?
This person is extremely safe. He practices engine outs frequently. He
knows the airplane inside and out. He has talked to the Pitts factory,
Lycoming and every other system manufacturer on the airplane. It is one of
the best maintained airplanes I have ever seen. He bought it new and it
is extremely clean. Everything is in exceptional working order.
Now back to the posting. Did I say that he would fly the airplane into
a crowded subdivision? If you read it, I don't think so.. YOU ASSUMED that
we are reckless individuals with no regard for others. WELL THINK AGAIN!
I have never seen so many idiots as I have see write in this forum. And
yes, you appear to be one of them. Jump to conclusions!!
It seems to me that it is irresponsible on your part to ASSUME that the
person would let his airplane fly into a crowded subdivision.
99708000
In article <1991Oct11....@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> gins...@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) writes:
>When the original message was posted, my reaction was pretty much
>one of horror, and I responded (much as I would in a conversation at
>the airport, tongue somewhat -- but only somehwat -- in cheek) by
It is SO hard to do that with this medium; at least some folks always
misunderstand. You can't hear any intonations or see any body
language.
>My guess is that all my postings have a semi-cheeky tone similar to
>that one, and I received a (very polite!) message recently saying
>that this tone was inappropriate to rec.aviation, that it violated
>the "criticize in private, compliment in public" flavor of this
>group. Is this true?
Well, as I recall, I found that post to be a bit too strident for my
taste. If you keep the heat turned down a little there's less chance
the original poster will get defensive--which is almost always
counter productive.
--
-Rob Strand
From Bitnet: rob@ucscvm From Internet: r...@ucscvm.ucsc.edu
Matthew L. Ginsberg
This is intended to be a meta-question about the current Pitts
controversy.
When the original message was posted, my reaction was pretty much
one of horror, and I responded (much as I would in a conversation at
the airport, tongue somewhat -- but only somehwat -- in cheek) by
suggesting that the pilot in question should have his plane taken
away.
My guess is that all my postings have a semi-cheeky tone similar to
that one, and I received a (very polite!) message recently saying
that this tone was inappropriate to rec.aviation, that it violated
the "criticize in private, compliment in public" flavor of this
group. Is this true?
When people report things on the net that strike me as unsafe, I tend
to say so in no uncertain terms. My rationale is that failure to do
so represents implicit approval of the actions taken, but maybe I've
misjudged this. If other rec.aviation readers want to moderate my
messages, I'll be happy to -- please let me know. After all, I enjoy
reading this newsgroup, too!
My apologies for expending bandwidth on this non-aviation matter.
Matt Ginsberg
Charles K. Scott
cc...@marlin.jcu.edu.au writes:
> I'm considering building an RV6A and was wondering if anyone has some
> useful (hopefully serious) advice. Does the RV6A really do 194 mph?
> Is corrosion inhibiter used during construction? Is it easy to build?
I suggest you call Ben Owen at Whittman Field, Oshkosh WI. He is the
EAA Technical Information Advisor and can put you in contact with a
number of people who have either built an RV or are in the process of
doing so. You could also speak to Tony Bingellis who writes a monthly
column for EAA and completed an RV-4 several years ago only to fall in
love with the RV-6 and begin that. Ben's number is 414-426-4821. The
RV series should be considered one of the premier kitbuilt type
aircraft available today, combigning low initial cost with quality kits
and outstanding performance. Another important point is that the
company has been in business for a long time which bodes well for
future orders and technical support. A number of RV's are flying and
it aparently does do what the manufacturer claims. It does take a lot
of rivet bucking though.
Corky Scott
Tom R. Myers
The net's closed-loop phase-shift can be quite long, and the closed-
-loop amplificaion of the posters can be quite high, which is a great
way to create an unstable system. The occasional resulting flame-wars
can lead to high head-temperatures, but just as often leads to really
interesting discussions. My own experience sez that the clearer a
person's posting, the greater the chances that the point of the person's
posting get communicated (e.g. a smiley to emphisize a humorous or
sarcastic point that you want to ensure is taken as intended 8^) ).
> the "criticize in private, compliment in public" flavor of this
I don't think criticism should be held back from the net. If a person
thinks an idea is a bad one, and has a reason why, it should be posted,
and discussed. We all, however, run the risk of being disagreed with.
I do draw a line at personal criticism. A flame war along the lines of,
"that plan is really bad because... ," can be very productive. Flame
wars seem to get ugly and unproductive when they degenerate to, "you,
and everyone you ever knew, is a jerk..."
We all have our hot-buttons that can get us a little excited as we
pound away on our keyboards. If the net concept is working properly,
some "spirited discussions" are probably pretty normal.
In my case, the thread that lead to this reply involved the death
of a friend. I've had three friends die in planes this summer; two
being acro friends. If I get a little touchy sometimes on the subject
of acro safety, that's why.
> misjudged this. If other rec.aviation readers want to moderate my
> messages, I'll be happy to -- please let me know. After all, I enjoy
The value of this forum will get pretty weak if its participants start
feeling that they have to dilute their messages. I would post exactly
what you want to post (within the reasonable limits of a public group,
anyway). Beware though, that the greater the ambiguity in either the
content or intent of your postings, the greater the likelyhood of PIOs
(Pilot Induced Oscillations) in the ensuing discussions.
> My apologies for expending bandwidth on this non-aviation matter.
I think discussions about the conduct of the newsgroup is a perfectly
valid use of net bandwidth.
TRM N1005E
Jim Schinnerer
> When people report things on the net that strike me as unsafe, I tend
> to say so in no uncertain terms. My rationale is that failure to do
> so represents implicit approval of the actions taken, but maybe I've
> misjudged this. If other rec.aviation readers want to moderate my
> messages, I'll be happy to -- please let me know. After all, I enjoy
> reading this newsgroup, too!
> Matt Ginsberg
I don't care if we all use politically correct verbage and I don't care if
someone uses an occasional swear word. I am more interested in what
the author has to say. Content is more important to me than style.
I too am a bit surprised at a pilot apparently deciding that the proper
response to an engine failure is to bail. While taking away his airplane
may not be the answer, you have made your point...a lot better than saying,
"Oh golly gee, that's not really the right thing to do...is it?"
I enjoy reading the newsgroup, also. I enjoy the different styles
of the posters, and the wealth of knowledge they possess.
---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Schinnerer - PP-ASEL-IA | Hewlett Packard
Mooney - 350X - "Buster" | Cupertino, CA
Hang IV - Magic KISS | (408) 447-6319
email - schi...@hpihoah.HP.COM |
---------------------------------------------------------
Tom R. Myers
> >of mine who owns a Pitts S2B has already decided that if his engine dies
> >while in flight, he will bail out. No attempt will be made to land it.
On the subject of pre-made bail-out decisions, Mark speaks the truth on
this one. There are acro pilots alive today because they minimized the
bail-or-not decision time in the air, and jumped before it became
impossible, which happens very quickly. As an example, my inverted fuel
system tank holds about a gallon of fuel right above my ankles. Any fire
in that area is a bail-out. Another example: Len Cresawn is an aerobatic
pilot from Colorado. He rode a flat inverted spin into the ground on
August 31. By the time he tried to bail, the g forces prevented him
from exiting the aircraft.
> Your friend should have his Pitts taken away from him. To have made
> this decision in advance without giving any consideration to the
> people on the ground is irresponsibility of the highest order.
Ok, lets relax a second and think about this rationally, rather than
jumping straight to the worst case scenerio. Mark's friend is not going
to say, "Oh, my! My engine just quit over a crowded schoolyard, and
I'm just going to jump now because I don't care about anyone but me."
The desire to overcome is almost always to stay in the plane. Amos
Butell burned to death three years ago because he tried to land his
burning Pitts. He would have probably survived a jump.
Personally, I've spent almost three years restoring my plane. Do you
think I really want to bail as a first choice? Of course not. But I
will if staying with the plane will only serve to add 1 to the body
count.
If the plane is controllable, and will remain controllable, the
plane probably gets flown. If the plane is soon to be
unflyable or uncontrollable, staying with the plane will only add 1 to
the body count. Joe was a responsible pilot in an airplane that
drops like a rock without power. Mark's friend shows responsibility
by think these problems out as best he can ahead of time. And
to be very honest, I'm a little put off by the holier-than-thou
judgement you've made about someone you don't even know.
> The bottom line is that you, as the pilot, have accepted the risks
> involved in flying. The people on the ground haven't.
Extended to the extreme, this point becomes, "outlaw all planes,
because one might fall on an innocent person." Life is all about risk
management, and risk acceptance. America allows airplanes to fly over
it. If you want to live in America, you accept the miniscule risk of
being under a falling plane. We have laws to minimize the hazard, but
if it must be zero for you to be happy, than move to Fiji, or some
such place without a whole lot of air traffic.
TRM N1005E
Wolfgang Diestelkamp
> This is intended to be a meta-question about the current Pitts
> controversy.
> My guess is that all my postings have a semi-cheeky tone similar to
> that one, and I received a (very polite!) message recently saying
> that this tone was inappropriate to rec.aviation, that it violated
> the "criticize in private, compliment in public" flavor of this
> group. Is this true?
> When people report things on the net that strike me as unsafe, I tend
> to say so in no uncertain terms. My rationale is that failure to do
> so represents implicit approval of the actions taken, but maybe I've
> misjudged this. If other rec.aviation readers want to moderate my
> messages, I'll be happy to -- please let me know. After all, I enjoy
> reading this newsgroup, too!
I would like to make a very strict distinction on this:
As you say, if anybody reports something on the net that seems unsafe,
do tell us in no uncertain terms; take this literally for me; if I ever
say I did something you feel was unsafe, please let me know and let the
other netters know.
Then when it gets to a point where things become personally, stop.
I wouldn't like people to call other people idiots on the net.
So do say that some things or some behaviour are unsafe, but do not
conclude that these people are unsafe (or even stupid, idiots, whatever).
And I would excuse anyone who overreacts to something *very* unsafe
and gets a bit personel on this (dropping a :-) somewhere).
--
===============================================================================
| Wolfgang Diestelkamp |
| please don't mail to the indicated return address, it might be fake. |
| mail to 'wolf...@gmdtub.uucp' |
============================<signature fault - core dumped
Wolfgang Diestelkamp
[ ... ]
> Personally, I've spent almost three years restoring my plane. Do you
> think I really want to bail as a first choice? Of course not. But I
> will if staying with the plane will only serve to add 1 to the body
> count.
> If the plane is controllable, and will remain controllable, the
> plane probably gets flown. If the plane is soon to be
> unflyable or uncontrollable, staying with the plane will only add 1 to
> the body count. Joe was a responsible pilot in an airplane that
> drops like a rock without power. Mark's friend shows responsibility
> by think these problems out as best he can ahead of time. And
> to be very honest, I'm a little put off by the holier-than-thou
> judgement you've made about someone you don't even know.
But what you say is in essence exactly what Matt Ginsberg had said:
Think ahead as much as you can, but do not have an *absolute* decision;
i.e. - just as you said - if the plane is controllable, try to land it
safely, if not, bail out (assuming you are not flying over that school-yard).
> Extended to the extreme, this point becomes, "outlaw all planes,
> because one might fall on an innocent person." Life is all about risk
> management, and risk acceptance. America allows airplanes to fly over
> it. If you want to live in America, you accept the miniscule risk of
> being under a falling plane. We have laws to minimize the hazard, but
> if it must be zero for you to be happy, than move to Fiji, or some
> such place without a whole lot of air traffic.
Not quite; the first person who accepts the risk is the pilot, not the people on
the ground; they have never been asked !
Again, think ahead as much as possible (on the ground and also particularly once
you are up in the air), but use good judgement and not a predefined decision
(that might not match the actual conditions of the situation) though it
might give you a guideline.
--
Gopal Ramachandran
>pilot from Colorado. He rode a flat inverted spin into the ground on
>August 31. By the time he tried to bail, the g forces prevented him
>from exiting the aircraft.
Just curious. Does anyone know if he pulled the power off or not, or
whether the rudder/throttle was jammed? Did he ever train at performing
flat spin entry/recoveries?
>Personally, I've spent almost three years restoring my plane. Do you
>think I really want to bail as a first choice? Of course not. But I
>...
>If the plane is controllable, and will remain controllable, the
>plane probably gets flown...
I agree. I have so much money, time, and sheer fun invested into my
Pitts that it's very tough to bail out. Of course, even though I've
made about 10 jumps, I's much rather stay with the airplane than hit
the silk. I've had an engine failure at 700' AGL in a Pitts (too low
to jump anyway) and also minor failures of other kinds (lost one out
of the 4 ailerons due to a linkage problem once, broken ribs in an
upper wing another time, broken stabilizer brace strut after too
enthusiastic a contest flight, etc) but except for the aileron
problem, I wasnt even aware of the other problems except for slight
changes in handling.
I had a scary experience in '88 when the weather rapidly went
totally down in the mountains of S. Montana, and I was in my Pitts,
on my way to Canada. Trying to land in extremely gusty
conditions and heavy rain, I had to abort the landings three times
(from opposite directions) because of the wind, and my aux tank broke
loose (it's suspended between the wheels, holding 17 gals) and dangled
down. I didnt have much of an option except to set it down as best as
I could. Ouch! They're strong airplanes. I walked away from it. And that's
why I've been building a new Pitts for the past 3 years. The FSS guy
on the field said he measured gusts to 50 knots but that didnt make me
feel any better. I did have a chute on, but the thought of climbing
back up a couple of thousand feet in IFR conditions and heavy rain
with no radios or gyros and jumping out into a full-blown thunderstorm
was not appealing at all. Actually, it may not even have occurred to
me at the time.
Some years ago, a guy flying a Pitts down in the Bakersfield
CA area pulled too many g's, collapsed the seat structure and jammed
the push-pull rods connected to the stick. He couldnt move the stick
at all. He flew around for a while in level flight (he could level
with some throttle, trim, and rudder inputs), and eventually decided
to bail out. I dont know all the details but I'm sure he hated like
hell to lose his airplane. As he floated down, his Pitts kept flying
towards the Gorman pass until it was out of sight. I dont know whether
they ever recovered it.
Gopal
--
Gopal Ramachandran <go...@cirrus.com>
UUCP: uunet!cirrus.com!gopal
Cirrus Logic Inc, Fremont CA PH: (510)-226-2138 FAX: (510)-226-2160
Mr. William Robie; POSI (GRAD)
"Compression training" ... I like that expression. ;-)
I once had a resident of Bermuda come to me on his 2-week "holiday"
with the determination of going home a pilot. I was teaching ultralight flying
at the time - not flight in more complicated certificated aircraft - so you
can adjust up/down/or discount the applicability of these comments to your
situation.
It is do-able, but difficult. The problem with trying to compress
alot of instruction into a short time is that the brain wants to have time
to absorb some things before moving on to the next subject. In other words,
there were times when the learning "curve" became a straight line ... down.
Another problem is that there is something to be said for developing
hand-to-eye skills over time. This varies with the individual.
Perhaps most significant is fatigue. Flying a plane (especially under
the stress of learning) can be physically and mentally tiring. I strongly
suggest that you two plan the kind of schedule that will break up flying time
into small blocks that are interupted by book work and relaxation periods.
Take lots of time to get somewhere dark & quiet, where you can close your eyes
and review what you are learning in your mind .
Good luck!
Gary Skaggs
I'm finally going to do it...and in one fell swoop!
There have been several threads recently (and the one story) regarding
what I call 'compression' training, and I'm going to have first hand
knowledge of it when finished.
I've arranged for a 152 and a CFI-I/ATP friend in Phoenix to help me with
this endeavor. Starting November 16, I'm going to live/eat/sleep/and fly
from Deer Valley Airport in Phoenix until the logbook has a DE endorsement
for SE/Land.
I have to admit, I have a few butterflies, but I really think that it is
from excitement not apprehension. This will be a first for my instructor
too, since with his other students, he felt himself lucky to get them for
2 hours, twice a week.
If ANYONE has any experience with this, we would appreciate greatly you
sharing those with us via e-mail. A syllabus would be EXTREMELY helpful.
Now, maybe I can turn those orphaned 13 hours in my logbook into something
worthwhile and shrink my pocketbook at the same time ;-) !!!
IF there is interest, I might post an abbreviated version of my experience.
Again, if you've had experience in 'cram flight courses', please e-mail me.
Thanks, Gary.
______________________________________________________________________________
Gary Skaggs - WB5ULK ska...@nssl.nssl.uoknor.edu DOC/NOAA/ERL/NSSL
"Historically we did chase tornados. Presently we chase funding."
"Opinion? call NOAA Public Affairs"
Steven Philipson
(Jordan Brown) writes;
> [...] KFI (a Los Angeles radio station)
> lost a long-time traffic watch pilot a few years ago to a stupid engine
> failure on takeoff resulting in the classic stall-spin-splat. He'd been
> doing traffic watch for LOTS of years, and still (apparently) panicced
> on the engine failure. It happens.
Jordan, could you provide some additional detail here? I recall the
media coverage of the crash fairly clearly. The papers printed eyewitness
accounts and diagrams of the crash site. The indications were that the
pilot elected to land more or less straight ahead but hit the side of
a semi. The articles showed that there was no clear place for the pilot
to go. The post-crash fire would not have been survivable even if the
impact was. I didn't see any mention of panic or a stall/spin at the
time.
Your article left me with four questions. 1) What makes you
characterize the engine failure as "stupid"? 2) Why do you believe
that panic was a factor? 3) What indications were there of stall/spin
versus controlled flight into an obstruction. 4) What are your sources
of information about this accident?
I'd normally send such questions via e-mail, but I've posted here
as I thought this discussion might be of general interest.
Steve
(the certified flying fanatic)
ste...@decwrl.dec.com
Tom R. Myers
> I could. Ouch! They're strong airplanes. I walked away from it. And that's
> why I've been building a new Pitts for the past 3 years. The FSS guy
Impressive landing! Nice work to walk from that one. What flavor of Pitts
are you building? When is ETA ? (Est Time till Airborne).
> Some years ago, a guy flying a Pitts down in the Bakersfield
> CA area pulled too many g's, collapsed the seat structure and jammed
> the push-pull rods connected to the stick. He couldnt move the stick
> towards the Gorman pass until it was out of sight. I dont know whether
> they ever recovered it.
Any idea who it was. I'll ask around, and see if I can get the scoop on
what happened.
TRM N1005E