The acrobatic performance, carried out by Marek Szufa, a pilot for LOT Polish Airlines and a .-up in Poland’s acrobatic championships, was part of an air show and picnic in the central city of Plock.
The crash happened when plumes of smoke started to come out of the engine of the Christen Eagle II piloted by Szufa. Moments later the plane lost control and plunged into the river.
http://www.thenews.pl/1/9/Artykul/46563 ... pilot-dead
Disaster at Plock Air Show leaves pilot dead
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
-
robertsailor1
- Rank 7
- Posts: 643
- Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:05 pm
Re: Disaster at Plock Air Show leaves pilot dead
Watched the video and all looked normal, looks like he just didn't have the altitude.
Re: Disaster at Plock Air Show leaves pilot dead
Yes, the video shows a perferctly normal flight, engine running just fine but he was just about 10 feet too low.
In this case you have a very very experienced aerobatic pilot, pulls to the 45, does a series of tumbles and then recovers into split-S.
All I can really say is that that manoeuver is really really difficult to do repeatedly with the same altitude loss and I'm not sure why he chose to put a split-S to the surface right after a tumble.
The problem is that a split-S uses altitude which is proportional to your indicated airspeed squared. As a result any small change in your starting airspeed, or the density altitude will cause a non linear increase in the radius of the pull.
To safely do that manoeuver he'd have to know his exact altutde (to the foot) and his exact airpseed (within a few knots) prior to starting the split-S pull. This is referred to as a 'gate'. He would have finished the tumbles, then checked his altimiter and airspeed and if above say 800ft and below say 90Mph he would have been 'ok' to pull. Faster than that or lower than that and he would abort.
The first tumble ended a bit prematurly and it looks like he rolled it the rest of the way then pulled through. Its possible that caused a higher entry speed for the split-S.
Anyway he left no room for mistakes and a tumble like that is very very hard to make work reliably especially when connected to something which squares the errors.
I've often tried to explain to people that aerobatics is a bit like playing pool .. you do a shot and it has to set you up for the next. You have to recognize when the setup is not going to work for the next shot and abort.
The othe rthing that happens is similar to get-home-itis .. there is a get-through-itis that makes you want to finish the routine unaltered as a matter of pride.
Anyway unfortunate.
In this case you have a very very experienced aerobatic pilot, pulls to the 45, does a series of tumbles and then recovers into split-S.
All I can really say is that that manoeuver is really really difficult to do repeatedly with the same altitude loss and I'm not sure why he chose to put a split-S to the surface right after a tumble.
The problem is that a split-S uses altitude which is proportional to your indicated airspeed squared. As a result any small change in your starting airspeed, or the density altitude will cause a non linear increase in the radius of the pull.
To safely do that manoeuver he'd have to know his exact altutde (to the foot) and his exact airpseed (within a few knots) prior to starting the split-S pull. This is referred to as a 'gate'. He would have finished the tumbles, then checked his altimiter and airspeed and if above say 800ft and below say 90Mph he would have been 'ok' to pull. Faster than that or lower than that and he would abort.
The first tumble ended a bit prematurly and it looks like he rolled it the rest of the way then pulled through. Its possible that caused a higher entry speed for the split-S.
Anyway he left no room for mistakes and a tumble like that is very very hard to make work reliably especially when connected to something which squares the errors.
I've often tried to explain to people that aerobatics is a bit like playing pool .. you do a shot and it has to set you up for the next. You have to recognize when the setup is not going to work for the next shot and abort.
The othe rthing that happens is similar to get-home-itis .. there is a get-through-itis that makes you want to finish the routine unaltered as a matter of pride.
Anyway unfortunate.
-
cdnpilot77
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2467
- Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:24 pm
Re: Disaster at Plock Air Show leaves pilot dead
Peter, you have been through a few shows and safety briefings, what is a standard response time of rescuers briefed at a typical show?
This seemed like a really slow response by rescuers. 1m13s for the first boat to come into view, then another 45 seconds to get a swimmer in the water. Am I missing something?
RIP to this pilot!
This seemed like a really slow response by rescuers. 1m13s for the first boat to come into view, then another 45 seconds to get a swimmer in the water. Am I missing something?
RIP to this pilot!
Re: Disaster at Plock Air Show leaves pilot dead
I have not done aerobatics at an airshow .. insurance is just to expensive and I have a day job, I stick to competitive type aerobatics, so I usually have a few hundred or more feet than the airshow folks give themselves.cdnpilot77 wrote:Peter, you have been through a few shows and safety briefings, what is a standard response time of rescuers briefed at a typical show?
Most airshow regulations, are designed to protect the bystanders. There is very little thought that goes into protecting the pilots. Most of the safety briefings and regs concern the 'line' between the performer(s) and the public and minimum alitudes rules.
There will be a lot of emphasis on where you can taxi, shut down, crowd control, emergency medical stuff for the crowds and then usually some emphasis on emergency response. They usually review things like how to keep the crash site secure , creating an access lane for the fire engines/ambulances etc. but not every airshow will have the first aid services available all the time. I'm not sure what happens over water as I've not participated in one, but I imagine there are not always boats with divers on board standing by. Its certainly not in the regs and would add considerably to the costs.
Mostly the government wants to make sure the spectators don't get hurt (and rightly so) but does not put that much work into protecting the pilots. Pilot protection is mostly done through self regulation where experienced airshow pilots recommend and check more junior pilots, this has helped keep a lot of new pilots safe. Infact the radius increase as a function of density altitude/G etc. is one of the major topics in that 'test' for a reason.
So I don't think that response time is anything unusual, just goes with the territory I suppose.
Sadly every summer a number of pilots get bitten by the changing radius of a 'simple loop' and I'm sure before the summer is over there will be a few more.
By the way, a little bit of water in the altimeter or airspeed indicator, or incorret setting could have caused this accident ... IMHO Bottom line, extremely experienced pilot, no margin, bad luck.
