Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Oshkosh accident

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Oshkosh accident - Caution, on my Soapboxt

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Mark Sletten

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 43
Location: St. Jacob, IL (Near St. Louis, MO)

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:27 am Post subject: Oshkosh accident - Caution, on my Soapboxt

Beware, this is an op ed post,



There is no question that this was a tragedy almost beyond comprehension. I

feel badly for the victim, the victim's family, anyone who witnessed it

personally and, lastly, the TBM's PIC. That being said, I think it's

important that we, as pilots, don't let this tragedy lead us somewhere -

emotionally, intellectually or literally - someplace we don't want to go; we

must keep our eyes on the ball. There is no question that wing walkers

and/or ground spotters could have (most likely would have) prevented this

accident. The bottom line in this case is there were none. 



I know I'm going to hear from those of you accusing me of armchair

quarterbacking. That's as may be, but I felt compelled to comment in light

of Linn's (maybe unintentional - see below) hints that someone other than

the PIC might be responsible for the safe movement of his or her aircraft on

the ground. Even *WITH* ground spotters, taxiing safely is still the

responsibility of the PIC. To even hint, however faintly, otherwise is to

open Pandora's Box.



Intimating that someone other than the PIC is responsible is the 1st step to

in the process wherein someone other then the PIC decides how to safely

operate our aircraft. 



Taxiing an aircraft that dwarfs most others at the show, with limited

visibility outside the aircraft, and knowing he was going to mix with many

different kinds of aircraft on a crowded, busy taxiway *WITH NO SPOTTERS*

should have spurred the Avenger pilot to take appropriate precautions - he

was the PIC.



 	  Quote: 	
		  From the victim's point of view, and in light of the number of pilots who've

made who-woulda-thunk-it comments, it's a safe bet that neither he, nor many
	


others of us have considered this kind of accident before now. I'd say the

majority of us will definitely think about it, and take appropriate

precautions (a mirror, stopping on a slant to allow aft visibility, etc.,

let's keep those comments coming), should we find ourselves in a similar

situation.



Additionally, I believe adamantly it is in no way the responsibility of the

EAA, or any other AirVenture organizer, to provide ground crews to prevent

taxi accidents. Volunteers help direct the flow of traffic and, as a side

benefit, might be in a position to *HELP* prevent ground accidents. Both of

these aircraft were on an established taxiway and knew where they were

going, therefore, no ground crews were provided. And that's as it should be

unless the PIC decides otherwise.



Further, *ANYONE* can volunteer to work at OSH during AirVenture - there is

no way to determine qualifications or expertise. If you *MUST* have a ground

crew to taxi safely, then the only way to be sure the crew is competent is

to bring your own. 



IMHO, by providing safety observers specifically to "help" pilots safely

taxi their aircraft, the EAA and AirVenture would become just as responsible

as the PIC. That kind of liability coupled with a tragic event such as this

can effectively kill large events like AirVenture. I wouldn't accept it -

nor, do I think, will they. If we pilots demand that the EAA and AirVenture

organizers take steps to *HELP* us avoid future accidents of this type, we

shouldn't be surprised at what we get - like scheduled departure times by

type.



Mark Sletten

Legacy FG N828LM

http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com

Linn Walters said:



I read the NTSB report and understood exactly how it happened.  The addition

of volunteers with paddles to regulate the flow on the taxiway could have

prevented this accident.  It may be as simple as a golf cart on the grass to

aid those pilots with forward visibility problems .... and as I said, it

doesn't reside only with the warbirds ..... would go a long way to prevent a

reoccurrence. The only other solution would be to set up departure times by

type and I'm sure nobody wants that.  What saddens me me about this accident

is that it truly was preventable ..... like most accidents are.

_________________
Mark Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com

Dave Johnson

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 7
Location: Erie, CO (48V, BJC)

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:50 am Post subject: Re: Oshkosh accident - Caution, on my Soapboxt

I agree, Mark. The reponsibility must be ours as pilots for the complete operation of our aircraft, including taxiing at an aviation event. Neither the EAA nor the FAA can or should take on that responsibility. Perhaps that should also be made clear in the NOTAM for next year, so there is no question in anyone's mind.



No doubt the TBM pilot is profoundly sorry right now as well. I can't imagine dealing with that sort of thing on my conscience.



Dave

jpl(at)showpage.org
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:01 am Post subject: Oshkosh accident - Caution, on my Soapboxt

I'm sorry, but I disagree with some of these sentiments.  No, I don't  

want a shift in overall responsibility.  However, Oshkosh has deaths  

every year, it seems.  If there are steps that can be taken to reduce  

those deaths that aren't terribly onerous, I think it makes sense to  

take those steps.



Ground handling accidents are easy to avoid.  Adding a requirement  

for an extra ground crew to assist any aircraft with over-the-nose  

visibility issues wouldn't be onerous.  The ground control frequency  

could also warn people to maintain a larger distance when following  

smaller aircraft.  They could erect signs to this effect or simply  

include it in a briefing to all large tail draggers.



Or they could have a 10-minute window every hour for certain types of  

aircraft to queue up.  So all the big aircraft would be clustered  

together.



There are dozens of different steps that could alleviate the  

likelihood of repeated ground handling accidents.  A failure to take  

any of them is an acknowledgment of spinelessness on the part of the  

folks shirking the opportunity to increase safety.



I don't blame the EAA guys for this accident.  The fault rests solely  

with the pilot of the TBM.  If you can't taxi your aircraft without  

running over some poor guy in front of you, you have no business at  

the controls of the aircraft.  But the EAA could take fairly simple  

steps to prevent it happening again.



I don't know about anyone else, but I'd happily pay a $2 safety fee  

to help provide for the types of ground crew that might prevent a  

repeat.  I sure as hell don't want to be run over by someone driving  

his oversized toy up my back side.



-Joe

On Aug 7, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Dave Johnson wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 I agree, Mark. The reponsibility must be ours as pilots for the  

 complete operation of our aircraft, including taxiing at an  

 aviation event. Neither the EAA nor the FAA can or should take on  

 that responsibility. Perhaps that should also be made clear in the  

 NOTAM for next year, so there is no question in anyone's mind.



 No doubt the TBM pilot is profoundly sorry right now as well. I  

 can't imagine dealing with that sort of thing on my conscience.



 Dave

jeffpoint

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 72
Location: MKE

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:59 am Post subject: Oshkosh accident - Caution, on my Soapboxt

OK, I've pretty much sat this one out, but I feel like I have to jump in 

here.  Joe makes a few good points, but some that I flatly disagree with.



Many listers have put some level of blame on either the ground 

volunteers, or the "system" in which they work.  I feel qualified to 

comment on this.  I'm the guy in charge of RV parking at Oshkosh, and I 

am very familiar with the workings of the ground operations..  I didn't 

witness the accident, but I was on the scene within minutes, and for 

several hours afterwords.  I assisted the fire dept. in doing their 

recovery operations, helped them go over the wreckage and look at the 

integrity of fuel lines etc, and showed them where not to cut.  I got to 

spend more than plenty of time looking close up at the accident site, so 

I feel somewhat qualified to comment on the accident (as much so as 

anyone else on this list, anyway.)



Some have suggested that large warbird types have a "wing walker" to 

escort them to and from the runways.  That's an idea which looks good on 

paper, but in reality is probably unworkable.  To do this would require 

a large increase in the number of people working the flight line, and a 

coresponding increase in the number of vehicles.  Keep in mind that 

every one on the ground crew is a volunteer; we can't just go out and 

hire another 100 people to increase our ranks.  We face dwindling 

numbers every year as it is.  Mike (aka Suzie Q, and my OSH counterpart 

down in Antique/Classic) has already addressed this on this list.



As for some of the other changes Joe suggested, such as departure slots 

for warbirds, again this looks good in theory, but in practice is 

unworkable.  If we were to shut down the airport for 10 minutes every 

hour to allow warbirds to do their thing, that would create huge backups 

in the system, all the way out to Ripon.  Anybody want to spend another 

45 minutes taking the Rush Lake scenic tour?  If we did this, and 

imposed even greater delays into the system, I think it would have a 

devastating effect on the convention.  People would begin to stay away 

in droves, in particular the warbird types.  I think onerous is the 

right word to describe this situation.



What happened here was absolutely a tragedy.  However, it was a freak 

accident, one that has never happened previously in the 36 years of OSH 

shows.  Do we want to go down a path that could have a devastating 

effect on the future of the show, based on one accident?  Anybody 

remember that one single accident, between an airliner and a Cherokee, 

resulted in the onerous rules that we deal with today, TCA's, 

transponders etc.  I'm not trying to minimize the seriousness of what 

happened, but I am try to suggest that we not throw the baby out with 

the bathwater, based on a single, freak accident.



FWIW, us parking volunteers are having this very debate right now, over 

on our own forum.  We are trying to come up with a workable solution, 

before something bad is forced down out throats.



Jeff Point

RV-6

Milwaukee

do not archive





 	  Quote:

_________________
Jeff Point
RV-6
Milwaukee WI

jpl(at)showpage.org
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:36 am Post subject: Oshkosh accident - Caution, on my Soapboxt

I'd like to point out I didn't suggest shutting down the airport for  

10 minutes an hour.  I suggested a 10-minute departure timeframe for  

large aircraft to queue up.  This is a little different.  If I'm in a  

small airplane, i would know not to fire my engines up from xx:30 to  

xx:40 every hour, but that if I were in a large aircraft (or whatever  

the criteria would be) that's the only time I should fire up my  

engines.  This would cluster departing aircraft of the type to run  

over little aircraft all together.  That big warbird is far more  

likely to see another big warbird than he is a tiny RV.



It's only one idea, and if it's not workable, then find ideas that are.



They could also rework parking or taxiways somewhat so that large  

aircraft are less likely to be following small aircraft.  Perhaps.



And who says you can't hire some extra crew if you can't get enough  

volunteers?  Charge every landing aircraft $2 safety fee to cover the  

cost.



Or have a staging area for large craft.  Have a golf cart with some  

tall tall flags on the back.  Make all the big aircraft collect  

together, then follow the hard-to-miss golf cart to the runway.  This  

is a small inconvenience to departing big aircraft, a minor amount of  

volunteer staff, and virtually guarantees no repeats of this type (at  

least for departure).  For arrival, you could do something similar by  

having large aircraft depart the landing runway in the opposite  

direction from small guys, and then have a golf cart to follow to the  

parking area.



Lots of ideas that could be kicked around.  I wasn't suggesting that  

any particular idea was the best possible.  But I am suggesting that  

there's no excuse to just toss our hands in the air and say, "It's  

someone else's problem."



Note that I don't blame the volunteers for this accident.  But I do  

blame anyone who anticipated accidents like this, was in a position  

to do something about them, and didn't.  None of my ideas are  

horribly onerous, and folks who know the operations better could take  

some of them, rework them into some sort of practical nature, and  

save lives in the future.



-J



On Aug 7, 2006, at 1:59 PM, Jeff Point wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 OK, I've pretty much sat this one out, but I feel like I have to  

 jump in here.  Joe makes a few good points, but some that I flatly  

 disagree with.



 Many listers have put some level of blame on either the ground  

 volunteers, or the "system" in which they work.  I feel qualified  

 to comment on this.  I'm the guy in charge of RV parking at  

 Oshkosh, and I am very familiar with the workings of the ground  

 operations..  I didn't witness the accident, but I was on the scene  

 within minutes, and for several hours afterwords.  I assisted the  

 fire dept. in doing their recovery operations, helped them go over  

 the wreckage and look at the integrity of fuel lines etc, and  

 showed them where not to cut.  I got to spend more than plenty of  

 time looking close up at the accident site, so I feel somewhat  

 qualified to comment on the accident (as much so as anyone else on  

 this list, anyway.)



 Some have suggested that large warbird types have a "wing walker"  

 to escort them to and from the runways.  That's an idea which looks  

 good on paper, but in reality is probably unworkable.  To do this  

 would require a large increase in the number of people working the  

 flight line, and a coresponding increase in the number of  

 vehicles.  Keep in mind that every one on the ground crew is a  

 volunteer; we can't just go out and hire another 100 people to  

 increase our ranks.  We face dwindling numbers every year as it  

 is.  Mike (aka Suzie Q, and my OSH counterpart down in Antique/ 

 Classic) has already addressed this on this list.



 As for some of the other changes Joe suggested, such as departure  

 slots for warbirds, again this looks good in theory, but in  

 practice is unworkable.  If we were to shut down the airport for 10  

 minutes every hour to allow warbirds to do their thing, that would  

 create huge backups in the system, all the way out to Ripon.   

 Anybody want to spend another 45 minutes taking the Rush Lake  

 scenic tour?  If we did this, and imposed even greater delays into  

 the system, I think it would have a devastating effect on the  

 convention.  People would begin to stay away in droves, in  

 particular the warbird types.  I think onerous is the right word to  

 describe this situation.



 What happened here was absolutely a tragedy.  However, it was a  

 freak accident, one that has never happened previously in the 36  

 years of OSH shows.  Do we want to go down a path that could have a  

 devastating effect on the future of the show, based on one  

 accident?  Anybody remember that one single accident, between an  

 airliner and a Cherokee, resulted in the onerous rules that we deal  

 with today, TCA's, transponders etc.  I'm not trying to minimize  

 the seriousness of what happened, but I am try to suggest that we  

 not throw the baby out with the bathwater, based on a single, freak  

 accident.



 FWIW, us parking volunteers are having this very debate right now,  

 over on our own forum.  We are trying to come up with a workable  

 solution, before something bad is forced down out throats.



 Jeff Point

 RV-6

 Milwaukee

 do not archive





>





 www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List

 wiki.matronics.com

FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:59 am Post subject: Oshkosh accident - Caution, on my Soapboxt

In a message dated 8/7/06 12:53:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 

rv(at)discursion.com writes:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Neither the EAA nor the FAA can or should take on that responsibility.

============================
	


Dave:



Playing lawyer ...  Check you local listings for the 2PM slot.  

The EAA automatically takes on responsibility by sponsoring the event and 

even more responsibility by providing Ground Crew.  Either way they are 

responsible and what is the definition of Class D Tower operations?  Control of 

aircraft departing and arriving while on the ground and advisories when in the air 

within the air space.



It is akin to parking your car via a Valet or checking your coat.  If the 

service is provided the risk is assumed.  ASSUMED not as in making an ass out of 

you and me ... But, as in taking on the responsibility!



YET, by FAA definition the accident would not have happened IF the pilot did 

not get in the plane.



Barry

"Chop'd Liver"



"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third 

time." 

Yamashiada

gcomfo(at)tc3net.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:06 pm Post subject: Oshkosh accident - Caution, on my Soapboxt

--

khorton01(at)rogers.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:12 pm Post subject: Oshkosh accident - Caution, on my Soapboxt

On 7 Aug 2006, at 14:59, Jeff Point wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 What happened here was absolutely a tragedy.  However, it was a  

 freak accident, one that has never happened previously in the 36  

 years of OSH shows.  Do we want to go down a path that could have a  

 devastating effect on the future of the show, based on one  

 accident?  Anybody remember that one single accident, between an  

 airliner and a Cherokee, resulted in the onerous rules that we deal  

 with today, TCA's, transponders etc.  I'm not trying to minimize  

 the seriousness of what happened, but I am try to suggest that we  

 not throw the baby out with the bathwater, based on a single, freak  

 accident.


	


You seem to be saying that one fatality in 36 years is an acceptable  

loss rate, so no changes are needed.  What loss rate would it take  

before you would conclude that changes were warranted?

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 FWIW, us parking volunteers are having this very debate right now,  

 over on our own forum.  We are trying to come up with a workable  

 solution, before something bad is forced down out throats.


	


I'm not familiar with the taxi way widths of the various taxi routes  

at OSH.  The crux of the problem appears to be that some taxi ways  

are too narrow to allow large tail draggers to S turn.  Given that  

most of the large tail draggers are in one area, is there any hope of  

giving them taxi routes during peak traffic periods that keep them on  

wider taxi ways, maybe at the expense of funneling them all to 09/27?



Why not throw this problem over to the EAA Warbirds division?  They  

seem to have a good supply of volunteers.  "Simply" require that they  

provide wing walkers for large taildragger warbirds.  If they don't  

have enough wing walkers, then they would have to back off on the  

number of warbird arrivals and/or departures.



Kevin Horton

Ottawa, Canada

do not archive

jeffpoint

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 72
Location: MKE

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:53 pm Post subject: Oshkosh accident - Caution, on my Soapboxt

--

_________________
Jeff Point
RV-6
Milwaukee WI

khorton01(at)rogers.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:53 pm Post subject: Oshkosh accident - Caution, on my Soapboxt

On 7 Aug 2006, at 21:51, Jeff Point wrote:



[quote] 



 --

chaztuna(at)adelphia.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:27 am Post subject: Oshkosh accident - Caution, on my Soapboxt

 	  Quote: 	
		  snipped

 Obviously, the large tail dragger pilot also has full responsibility  

 to taxi safely, but the "system" should make every effort to put him  

 in a situation where that is possible.  If the taxi way is too narrow  

 to allow S-turns, then the only way a large tail dragger can taxi  

 safely is with some outside assistance.  The Avenger pilot was put in  

 a very difficult situation.  Once he was marshalled onto a narrow  

 taxi way with no wing walkers, he had two choices: press on and hope  

 for the best, or shut down and become a road block.  He gambled with  

 option 1, and he lost.



 Kevin Horton         RV-8 (finishing kit)

 Ottawa, Canada

  http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 	


 Kevin,

  He could have asked his wife to get out and act as a spotter. He had a choice.

 Just playing devils advocate

 Charlie Kuss

jpl(at)showpage.org
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:48 am Post subject: Oshkosh accident - Caution, on my Soapboxt

Just because the controllers at the airfield tell you to do something doesn't mean you have to do it.  In my one trip to Oshkosh, I was told that I'd be directed to a run up area.  Instead, the ground controllers basically "pushed" me onto the runway with no run up.  I didn't know what else to do, so I just ran off the other side of the runway and told the tower I'd like a run up before takeoff.

Optimal?  Certainly not.  And to this day, I don't know what I was supposed to do.  I don't think doing a run up in the parking area is the right choice.  Maybe I was supposed to do it during the taxi.  But I really expected a chance to pull over and do a proper run up.  It wasn't until they gestured me onto the runway that I realized I was about to take off on an IFR flight plan without finishing my pre-takeoff checklist.



But my point -- you CAN interrupt procedures if you don't think they're safe, regardless of how annoying doing so might be to the controllers.  And difficulty in seeing the guy in front of you definitely counts.



-J



On Aug 8, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Charlie Kuss wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		    	  Quote: 	
		  snipped

 Obviously, the large tail dragger pilot also has full responsibility  

 to taxi safely, but the "system" should make every effort to put him  

 in a situation where that is possible.  If the taxi way is too narrow  

 to allow S-turns, then the only way a large tail dragger can taxi  

 safely is with some outside assistance.  The Avenger pilot was put in  

 a very difficult situation.  Once he was marshalled onto a narrow  

 taxi way with no wing walkers, he had two choices: press on and hope  

 for the best, or shut down and become a road block.  He gambled with  

 option 1, and he lost.



 Kevin Horton         RV-8 (finishing kit)

 Ottawa, Canada

  http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 	


 Kevin,

  He could have asked his wife to get out and act as a spotter. He had a choice.

 Just playing devils advocate

 Charlie Kuss

Mark Sletten

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 43
Location: St. Jacob, IL (Near St. Louis, MO)

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:31 am Post subject: Oshkosh accident - Caution, on my Soapboxt

 	  Quote: 	
		  From another lister:


	


 	  Quote: 	
		   Obviously, the large tail dragger pilot also has full responsibility

 to taxi safely, but the "system" should make every effort to put him

 in a situation where that is possible.  If the taxi way is too narrow

 to allow S-turns, then the only way a large tail dragger can taxi

 safely is with some outside assistance.


	


This argument, on its face, makes perfect sense - especially in light of

the possibility of "saving lives." Again I urge caution, I believe this to

be the first step down a slippery slope, at the bottom of which you'll

find Pandora's Box. I, for one, do not wish the “system” to do my job for

me, because the “system” rarely “makes an effort” to do anything, other

than to tell me what I can’t do. Do you see the "system' making the

taxiways wider in response to this accident?



Making a mandatory rule (for that can be the “system's” only response) to

deal specifically with this situation may very well prevent its

reoccurrence, but at what cost? We are all (those certificated at least)

qualified pilots, qualified to operate an aircraft from chocks out to

chocks in. We already have a plethora of rules whose boundaries we are

obliged to remain within - do we really want more?



The counter-argument is, "It's only one rule, and it just might save

someone's life." Those making this counter-argument seek to trump all

future arguments by making potential opponents seem callous and uncaring

about human life.



One of flying’s biggest draws is a marvelous sense of freedom. Part of

that sense of freedom comes from feeling the pride of accomplishment. It's

knowing we are engaging in a risky endeavor, risks we overcome through the

effective application of skills learned in training. Our training allows

us to bend an unruly aero-machine to our will. How long until "...just one

rule..." becomes too many rules? In Mexico one can't fly his or her

aircraft VFR at night. The Government thinks it's too risky...



We could save a tremendous number of lives in this country by making a

national 55 mph speed limit, and enforcing it with a speed governor on

every automobile. I don't know the specific ratios (I'm sure the hobby

physicists among us will correct me), but reducing the speed of an impact

by a factor of 1 reduces the force of that impact by a factor of 4 (Energy

= Mass times Velocity squared, I hate math...) The point is we don't have

a national speed limit; a deadly impact is a risk we are all willing to

accept - along with the freedom to drive faster.



As has been pointed out by another poster, this is the one and only time

an accident such as this has occurred at OSH in its long and storied

history. After this one, assuming *NO RULES* are added, how long do you

think it will be before another? How many of us will blithely sit on a

busy taxiway without knowing who or what is taxiing behind us? How about a

simple radio call, "Avenger taxiing south on Bravo, do you see the RV in

front of you?"



 	  Quote: 	
		   You seem to be saying that one fatality in 36 years is an acceptable

 loss rate, so no changes are needed.  What loss rate would it take

 before you would conclude that changes were warranted?


	


Another question designed to intimidate the opponent by making him or her

appear to be unconcerned about the loss of life - and is also very close

to a personal attack. Let me be clear, NO FATALITIES ARE ACCEPTABLE! The

question isn’t whether fatalities are acceptable; the question is what

reaction to this accident is appropriate. It’s not unusual to feel the

need to “do something” in the face of a tragic accident, but we must

approach the situation carefully so that whatever we do (or don’t do) is

appropriate!



 	  Quote: 	
		   The Avenger pilot was put in a very difficult situation.  Once he

 was marshalled onto a narrow taxi way with no wing walkers, he had

 two choices: press on and hope for the best, or shut down and

 become a road block.


	


This argument is a little specious. Assuming the Avenger pilot even

considered the dangers of taxiing on a narrow taxiway in a row of mixed

traffic, he had an infinite number of options. If he was feeling

uncomfortable with the situation he may very well have chosen to continue

due to percieved pressure to do so - this, of course, is mere speculation.

We could also speculate that the perceived pressure to taxi and avoid

becoming a "road block" would surely have paled in comparison to the

eventual outcome, if only he had the gift of clairvoyance.



So what is the final outcome? What if there are no wing walkers available,

do we prohibit taxiing without them? Can we make enough rules so as to

rule out the possibility of one of making mistakes? I submit that the

umbrella of rules under which we currently operate is quite broad, but not

so broad as to prevent any number of tragic accidents from happening on a

daily basis. How many more would do the trick?



No, the reality is the Avenger's pilot operated within the rules, and

still made mistakes - mistakes that proved fatal for the victim in this

case. We can argue what he, the RV pilot, the EAA and/or the FAA should or

shouldn't have done until the cows come home, and it won't change the fact

that this accident was a freakish tragedy exactly *BECAUSE* it was so

unexpected, unlikely, unusual and uncommon.



Everyone involved in our avocation knows (or should know) the risks. Every

time we "slip the surly bonds" we are risking our life, the lives of our

passengers and assorted potential victims on the ground. We've all heard

the cliché, "The only way to conduct a flight in complete safety is to not

conduct it at all," or something close to it.



It may be cliché, but there is a small seed of truth there if one cares to

look for it. You have to look beyond the irony, beyond the sarcasm and

think! You'll find one of the immutable truths upon which our system of

liberty and freedom is founded - the very system that allows us the

freedom of personal flight. That truth, simply stated, tells us that we

are responsible and accountable for our actions. To abdicate that

responsibility is to abdicate our freedom. My fear is that the little seed

of truth found in the cliché, a truth which can grow to understanding and

enlightenment, will wither and die if shielded from the sunlight of

freedom by the umbrella of rules.



IMHO, the *BEST* way to prevent this tragedy's reenactment is through

education, not legislation. In that regard, let’s keep the ideas coming

for what we as pilots, not as regulators, can do.



Mark Sletten

Legacy FG N828LM

www.legacyfgbuilder.com

_________________
Mark Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com

Gary.A.Sobek

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 217
Location: SoCAL USA

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:44 pm Post subject: Oshkosh accident - Caution, on my Soapboxt

The taxiway is wide enough for a flight of 15 RVs to taxi staggard (side by 

side).  How wide are we to make it?



Everything we do in VFR flying is SEE and AVOID.  Take all the space you 

need behind other aircraft so that you can taxi without hitting someone.  DO 

NOT let others tell you to get closer than you want.



I purchased my REAR VIEW Mirror from Pep Boys over 4 years ago.

Gary A. Sobek

"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,

1,932 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA

http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com





----Original Message Follows----



 >From another lister:



 > Obviously, the large tail dragger pilot also has full responsibility

 > to taxi safely, but the "system" should make every effort to put him

 > in a situation where that is possible.  If the taxi way is too narrow

 > to allow S-turns, then the only way a large tail dragger can taxi

 > safely is with some outside assistance.



This argument, on its face, makes perfect sense - especially in light of

the possibility of "saving lives." Again I urge caution, I believe this to

be the first step down a slippery slope, at the bottom of which you'll

find Pandora's Box. I, for one, do not wish the “system” to do my job for

me, because the “system” rarely “makes an effort” to do anything, other

than to tell me what I can’t do. Do you see the "system' making the

taxiways wider in response to this accident?

Dave Johnson

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 7
Location: Erie, CO (48V, BJC)

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:46 pm Post subject: Re: Oshkosh accident - Caution, on my Soapboxt

You've summarized my thoughts perfectly. Nicely stated. Slippery slope indeed, and PIC responsibility is where me must stop the buck. It really is that simple. More rules are not the solution...obeying the cardinal rule *is*.



Dave



Do not archive.

 	  Quote: 	
		  

Making a mandatory rule (for that can be the ?system's? only response) to

deal specifically with this situation may very well prevent its

reoccurrence, but at what cost? We are all (those certificated at least)

qualified pilots, qualified to operate an aircraft from chocks out to

chocks in. We already have a plethora of rules whose boundaries we are

obliged to remain within - do we really want more?



The counter-argument is, "It's only one rule, and it just might save

someone's life." Those making this counter-argument seek to trump all

future arguments by making potential opponents seem callous and uncaring

about human life.



One of flying?s biggest draws is a marvelous sense of freedom. Part of

that sense of freedom comes from feeling the pride of accomplishment. It's

knowing we are engaging in a risky endeavor, risks we overcome through the

effective application of skills learned in training. Our training allows

us to bend an unruly aero-machine to our will. How long until "...just one

rule..." becomes too many rules? In Mexico one can't fly his or her

aircraft VFR at night. The Government thinks it's too risky...

gert.v(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject: Oshkosh accident - Caution, on my Soapboxt

But let's not forget we (the volunteers) WERE there. anytime the avenger 

pilot felt unsafe, he could have stopped and waved any of the volunteers 

along Papa and stated his problem and his request.

it would not be the first pilot and will not be the last pilot asking 

for help. I myself have helped warbird pilots, as well as others, along 

Papa who needed space, direction, urge to do a run-up then and there, 

etc. All u have to do is ask and we will do our best to secure the area 

for u.

And papa seems to get smaller and smaller as this thread moves along, 

the main gear of a super conny fits on it, so did the B24 and the B17 as 

well as the lancaster gear without running off in the grass on either 

side, just to put width in perspective. The avenger is not that wide 

compared to the above planes. Yes i know, they don't have to S-turn, 

just pointing out other warbird tail draggers can and do on papa taxiway.

RV6 Flyer wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 The taxiway is wide enough for a flight of 15 RVs to taxi staggard 

 (side by side). How wide are we to make it?

 Everything we do in VFR flying is SEE and AVOID. Take all the space 

 you need behind other aircraft so that you can taxi without hitting 

 someone. DO NOT let others tell you to get closer than you want.

 I purchased my REAR VIEW Mirror from Pep Boys over 4 years ago.

 Gary A. Sobek

 "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,

 1,932 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA

 http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com

 ----Original Message Follows----

 >From another lister:

 > Obviously, the large tail dragger pilot also has full responsibility

 > to taxi safely, but the "system" should make every effort to put him

 > in a situation where that is possible. If the taxi way is too narrow

 > to allow S-turns, then the only way a large tail dragger can taxi

 > safely is with some outside assistance.

 This argument, on its face, makes perfect sense - especially in light of

 the possibility of "saving lives." Again I urge caution, I believe 

 this to

 be the first step down a slippery slope, at the bottom of which you'll

 find Pandora's Box. I, for one, do not wish the “system” to do my job for

 me, because the “system” rarely “makes an effort” to do anything, other

 than to tell me what I can’t do. Do you see the "system' making the

 taxiways wider in response to this accident?

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, '227,

any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address

is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500

US.  E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:16 am Post subject: Oshkosh accident - Caution, on my Soapboxt

I suggest the responsibility lies with the Avenger's PIC, the fault is

shared by many parties.



Chuck Jensen

low pass

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 32
Location: Houston

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:03 am Post subject: Re: Oshkosh accident - Caution, on my Soapboxt

 	  cjensen(at)dts9000.com wrote: 	
		  I suggest the responsibility lies with the Avenger's PIC, the fault is

shared by many parties.



Chuck Jensen 	
Respectfully, IMO, you're half right.  The responsibility lies with the PIC (of the TBM) - period.  The fault is not a consideration.  All PIC's operating aircraft chose to come to Oshkosh and accepted the finite amount of risk.  True, no death is acceptable, but there is in fact a certain number of accidents/incidents/collisions, etc. that are either acceptable or unacceptable.  Apparently, one or two each year are acceptable.  The show continues - for now.  Doesn't make the losses good or something we should not try very hard to prevent (e.g., this discussion).  But to say no accidents will occur or none should be expected in the plan is just not realistic.  The goal should be to *minimize* risks.



Last comment with my turn, PLEASE don't advocate any more rules.  After 20 yrs of flying, I actually gain more respect for those rules (OSH and system wide) the more I use them.  If pilots would just do their #1 job of SEE AND AVOID, these human error risks would be pushed to near zero.



I'll step away from the horse.  Flame away.



Bryan

_________________
Bryan -8
Houston

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum