http://www.topix.net/content/ap/4250836 ... 1717254984
I witnessed this crash yesterday it was really a sad thing to see.
Good speed
Hillsboro Oregon Airshow Crash
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
fougapilot
- Rank 7
- Posts: 669
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:49 am
From the info I can find, it was an ex-Swiss airforce Hawker Hunter single engine, single seat first generation fighter. Real nice airplane, easy to fly reliable engine, but older technilogy.
Are airshow dangerous? Wrong question. Aerial demonstrations of any kind are dangerous. But who bares the risk? In North America, airshows are now governed by an association called International Council of Airshows (ICAS). One of ICAS' first job (late 80s) was to self regulate the industry before the Feds shut it down due to its poor safety record.
In addition to having to follow a strict set of rules designed to keep the public safe, every airshow performer must renew his qualification every year to continue to perform. Initial qualification is issued with a minimum altitude of 800ft agl and when sufficient experience is gained a this level the applicant can request a level change. The levels are 800ft, 500ft, 250ft and unlimited. The only way one can become "unlimited" is with 3-4 years experience as a performer and somewhere around 25-30 performance under one's belt (I would have to check the book to get the correct number, but am too lazy)
Ever since the arrival of ICAS, there has not been a single spectator fatality in a North American airshow. I agree, there are accidents and performer do pay the ultimate price for their passion, but believe me when I say WE know the risks and accept them. I have lost many friends since I became an aviator in 1984, and have lost only one performing airshow.
Dan
Are airshow dangerous? Wrong question. Aerial demonstrations of any kind are dangerous. But who bares the risk? In North America, airshows are now governed by an association called International Council of Airshows (ICAS). One of ICAS' first job (late 80s) was to self regulate the industry before the Feds shut it down due to its poor safety record.
In addition to having to follow a strict set of rules designed to keep the public safe, every airshow performer must renew his qualification every year to continue to perform. Initial qualification is issued with a minimum altitude of 800ft agl and when sufficient experience is gained a this level the applicant can request a level change. The levels are 800ft, 500ft, 250ft and unlimited. The only way one can become "unlimited" is with 3-4 years experience as a performer and somewhere around 25-30 performance under one's belt (I would have to check the book to get the correct number, but am too lazy)
Ever since the arrival of ICAS, there has not been a single spectator fatality in a North American airshow. I agree, there are accidents and performer do pay the ultimate price for their passion, but believe me when I say WE know the risks and accept them. I have lost many friends since I became an aviator in 1984, and have lost only one performing airshow.
Dan
Thanks Fouga.
This sounds like a "depature show."
Wasn't there, so I'm only speaking in general terms:
After an air show weekend there can be a lot of testosterone flowing, and a "beat-up" of the field when departing for home has tempted, and sometimes been the undoing, of a lot of pilots.
Especially, among the guys who were on static display - who are usually not sanctioned air-display pilots. Being unfamiliar with pushing their aircraft to the limit, and at low-level, their departure show can result in a red face, a bent aircraft or worse...
This sounds like a "depature show."
Wasn't there, so I'm only speaking in general terms:
After an air show weekend there can be a lot of testosterone flowing, and a "beat-up" of the field when departing for home has tempted, and sometimes been the undoing, of a lot of pilots.
Especially, among the guys who were on static display - who are usually not sanctioned air-display pilots. Being unfamiliar with pushing their aircraft to the limit, and at low-level, their departure show can result in a red face, a bent aircraft or worse...
From what I understand, the aircraft was just taking off for a re-positioning flight when it crashed.
Anyone remember Tom Delashaw at Wilkes-Barre, a couple years back?
Sure sounds like the same thing - Hawker Hunter takeoff for a cross-country flight, engine failure, fatal crash.
Anyone remember Tom Delashaw at Wilkes-Barre, a couple years back?
Sure sounds like the same thing - Hawker Hunter takeoff for a cross-country flight, engine failure, fatal crash.
-
yak driver
- Rank 2
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 7:54 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
-
fougapilot
- Rank 7
- Posts: 669
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:49 am
Hedley,
It does resemble Tom's accident but there is a major difference. Tom was ferrying a trainer Hunter (2 seats with smaller engine) to its new owner. The airplane had not flown in many years, an engine changed had just occured. He had spent the better part of 2 days trouble shooting the lack of acceleration on take off run and eventually decided there was sufficient thrust to take off. The Hunter manual is quite clear on doing an acceleration check on take off roll and the need to abort should it be insufficient. With 10500lbs of thrust the acceleration is obvious.
With all the respect I have for Tom (I knew him personnaly) he took the risk and paid the ultimate price for is error in judgement. Now here was a man with well over 10 000hrs of fighter time ranging from the T-37 to the F104, 105, 106 F4 (he is the only man I met who flew Starfighters in Vietnam!) who made a basic error. Only goes to prove that no one is bullet proof.
D
It does resemble Tom's accident but there is a major difference. Tom was ferrying a trainer Hunter (2 seats with smaller engine) to its new owner. The airplane had not flown in many years, an engine changed had just occured. He had spent the better part of 2 days trouble shooting the lack of acceleration on take off run and eventually decided there was sufficient thrust to take off. The Hunter manual is quite clear on doing an acceleration check on take off roll and the need to abort should it be insufficient. With 10500lbs of thrust the acceleration is obvious.
With all the respect I have for Tom (I knew him personnaly) he took the risk and paid the ultimate price for is error in judgement. Now here was a man with well over 10 000hrs of fighter time ranging from the T-37 to the F104, 105, 106 F4 (he is the only man I met who flew Starfighters in Vietnam!) who made a basic error. Only goes to prove that no one is bullet proof.
D
