Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is disgusting is how long it took the fire department to get on scene, they were not there for almost 3 minutes and did not get water flowing until over 5 minutes. All military shows has firefighters on base and supposedly ready to roll, the pilot should be in the hospital and not in the morgue.
Not sure what firefighters were going to do. It was an open cockpit, the plane hit the tarmac inverted, 3 seconds or 3 hours, it probably wouldn't have made any difference.
I have a number of friends that are air show performers and that were there and saw the crash and knew the ground crew and they are adamant that Eddie was alive until the fire and smoke killed him.
If you watch the video, the engine was still running while it was on the ground and the plane was resting on the tail and top wing, the cockpit was not, nor was the pilot touching the ground.
This story is so sad. And I agree with those who have pointed out the slow response time.
I really wanted to go to this show as I try to never miss an opportunity to see the Thunderbirds. But I had other priorities, so decided it wasn't going to happen this year.
I wonder if anyone else sees this as an almost senseless loss as I do. Virtually all of these shows have stunt flyers doing acrobatic maneuvers in old vintage aircraft. And some of them are old-timers, as in this case and in the recent crash in Reno. Does anyone really get excited about these acts? When they precede The Thunderbirds? I have always viewed them as the commercials or the previews you have to sit through before the movie starts. I pay almost no attention to them and use that time touring the static displays.
Particularly when you have an old-timer at the controls, it seems to me that these acts are about 10 parts risk to 1 part entertainment. The risk/reward ratio just isn't sensible or justifiable IMHO.
At the risk of two quick pages of flames that no doubt will pile up fast, I just wondered if anyone else shares my view.
Age has nothing to do with airshow accidents, there are just as many "younger" pilots turning themselves into smoking holes. I flew with a friend of mine who if you saw him on the street, you would feel sorry for him, his hands were crippled with arthritis, he walked with a cane because of 2 hip replacements, but when he got into the plane, he could make it dance.
When you are flying close to the ground, your margin of error is very small. it does matter if you are 18 or 80.
sometimes whether you live or die is dependent on a downdraft, a dust devil, or a setting on the altimeter.
Age has nothing to do with airshow accidents, there are just as many "younger" pilots turning themselves into smoking holes. I flew with a friend of mine who if you saw him on the street, you would feel sorry for him, his hands were crippled with arthritis, he walked with a cane because of 2 hip replacements, but when he got into the plane, he could make it dance.
When you are flying close to the ground, your margin of error is very small. it does matter if you are 18 or 80.
sometimes whether you live or die is dependent on a downdraft, a dust devil, or a setting on the altimeter.
Please.....and I suppose age has no bearing on car accidents either?
There may, in fact, be little difference between 18 and 80 - both poor risks for different reasons - but put a 34 year-old in a cockpit and chances are greater he'll come home in one piece.
Please.....and I suppose age has no bearing on car accidents either?
There may, in fact, be little difference between 18 and 80 - both poor risks for different reasons - but put a 34 year-old in a cockpit and chances are greater he'll come home in one piece.
Not necessarily; the stats say otherwise...
I used to manage an Air Force task management and cockpit resource program. It looked specifically at fighter aircraft, but at aircrews in general. The highest acident rate? Not the young kid. Not the old head. It was the mid-career captain and major, at around 1770 hours total time. Why? As a young wingman everything I did was managed and controlled, there were step-down checkouts and minima for approaches were higher. Once experienced, there were fewer restrictions. By the time I was at mid-career, I was on my third aircraft, learning a more complex aircraft. Lots of judgement and experience, yes, but with experience can come complacency and arrogance. (Arrogance, from a pilot? YGBSM!) It turns out that at around 1770 hours (average) there was a spike in the accident rate for USAF tactical aviators.
Now, in the civilian world, when you get your certificate you're on your own until biennial time, you manage your own risk, but air show performers don't get to be old guys (who rule) by taking unnecessary risks.
I also suspect that if a 34-year old captain was at the sidestick and not Sully, the Airbus in the Hudson scenario would have been a lot different. (Not wthstanding the unlikelihood of a 34-year old captain.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please.....and I suppose age has no bearing on car accidents either? 
