Pilot who buzzed Santa Monica Pier - missing in China crash

[bizjets101]

David G. Riggs was reportedly flying a Lancair 320, a high-performance single-engine aircraft made from a kit, Tuesday when he struck the surface of a lake outside Shenyang, where he was planning to perform in an airshow, organizers and Chinese state media said.

His 18-year-old translator was killed instantly, but Riggs’ body was still missing as of Wednesday afternoon local time.

Witnesses said Riggs was practicing a stunt in the rain that required him to gently touch the wheels on the water to produce a skiing effect. Apparently, the landing gear or another part of the plane caught the water.

"We are investigating the cause of the crash," said Xu Jiuqing of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, one of the organizers of the air show.

LA Times full story

[bizjets101]

Hmmm, aircraft unconfirmed but reported as;

C-FXCK Lancair 360 registered to Youth Aviation of Canada Inc., Studio City - California,
registry lists Boundry Bay as base.

[CFR]

"Live by the sword, die by the sword."

[PilotDAR]

a stunt in the rain that required him to gently touch the wheels on the water to produce a skiing effect.

So I understand that he was intending to waterski the plane on the wheels? "Alaska" style?

I'll display possible ignorance, but are aren't Lancairs tricycle aircraft? No matter what your precision, could you even get the mains waterskiing at a suitable speed for this, without the nosewheel digging in and flipping you over into the water? I am under the impression that only taildraggers, usually with low wing loading, and ideally with big tires, are suitable for this kind of foolishness. Yeah, I know about the South African Harvards, but at least they are taildraggers!

"Live by the sword, die by the sword."

Sounds like it to me!

[kamikaze]

He's also known as the "aviation criminal":

http://www.aviationcriminal.com/

[Beefitarian]

...aren't Lancairs tricycle aircraft? No matter what your precision, could you even get the mains waterskiing at a suitable speed for this, without the nosewheel digging in and flipping you over into the water?

That's the first thing I thought. Granted I'm much less experienced.

Well, regardless of how many people hated him I think this is still tragic.

[CFR]

You are a very good man Beef!!!

I started following the info on this guy when he buzzed the pier.

Here is a link to a site with some info on him.

http://www.aviationcriminal.com/riggs/?page_id=597

Just for fun I did a civil aircraft registry search on the Lancair and find it was registered in Canada in May of this year, to:

Youth Aviation of Canada Inc
12400 Ventura Blvd #674
Studio City, California
91604 U.S.A.

Prior to that it was registered in the US where Riggs does not have a license. There is also a Christian Eagle registered to Youth Aviation Canada. Both aircraft are registered in the Toronto region, to a corporation supposedly set up in Calgary, with a listed area of operation as the west coast of BC but which mostly fly in California. Apparently he did the same thing in 2009 with an L-39 that he was no longer allowed to fly in the US.

There is no listing that I can find for Youth Aviation which is supposedly registered in Alberta (I am not interested enough to pay for a registry search). Here is a Goggle street view of the address in California that the aircraft is registered at, a business post office box. Seems to me Mr Riggs knew how to use the system and lived his life doing so. His lifestyle caught up with him and he paid the ultimate price. The only real tragedy here is that he took a young life with him!

[PilotDAR]

Thanks for the alarming entertaining link CFR.

Form the link:

[quote]Riggs pilot’s certificate revoked[quote]

How did he find time to earn one?

Yes, the only loss here is an innocent passenger, a plane, and some image for our industry...

[Beefitarian]

I'm in no way defending him and I can see, he was doing some bad things.

I fully agree the loss of the young interpreter is worse, as that person was only caught up in this event.

I just won't celebrate anyone's death.

[PilotDAR]

I just won't celebrate anyone's death.

I agree, but I can focus on other losses first in circumstances like this...

[Beefitarian]

I just won't celebrate anyone's death.

I agree, but I can focus on other losses first in circumstances like this...

That's fair.

[Colonel Sanders]

only taildraggers, usually with low wing loading, and ideally with big tires, are suitable

Most of my friends "waterski":

[burhead1]

Hmmm, aircraft unconfirmed but reported as;

C-FXCK Lancair 360 registered

What a shame, what a loss.

[CFR]

I'm in no way defending him and I can see, he was doing some bad things.

I fully agree the loss of the young interpreter is worse, as that person was only caught up in this event.

I just won't celebrate anyone's death.

To be clear I did not think you or anyone was defending him and to also be clear I am not celebrating his passing, but I do not have sympathy for him. I do feel very bad for the family of the young woman killed. I have no real idea as to his skill set, beyond the info on the admittedly biased websites, but he has been associated with more fatalities than anyone I know. It bothers me that he was able to manipulate the system and use loopholes to thumb his nose at the authorities (both here and in the US), that may have been able to prevent this from happening.

[Colonel Sanders]

prevent this from happening

No amount of paper will make someone whom
is an idiot, not be an idiot.

One could enact hundreds of laws specifying that
zebras should not have stripes, but despite all
those laws, zebras will probably continue to have
stripes.

[CFR]

prevent this from happening

No amount of paper will make someone whom
is an idiot, not be an idiot.

One could enact hundreds of laws specifying that
zebras should not have stripes, but despite all
those laws, zebras will probably continue to have
stripes.

If there had been some exchange of information between the US, Canadian and Chinese authorities, perhaps he would not have been allowed into the country. As it is the remainder of his "airshow" troupe was given 2 days to disassemble their aircraft and get out of Dodge. This may not have changed his ultimate fate, but on this day, at this place, he would not have taken a life.

I agree paper does not prevent accidents (well actually it can stop Alpha radiation particles - but I digress) but it does (or at least is intended to) develop a set of acceptable standards and/or set expectations of correct operations/behaviour to which authorities can hold persons accountable. It is the failure to train and adhere to standards or the failure to exercise accountability or apply it indiscriminately or incorrectly, that leads to repeated offences that lead to accidents. Having been involved in a few of the regulatory processes, where more often than not I found myself the voice of reason in a chorus of people promoting increasingly and unnecessarily restrictive proposals, I share some, but not all of your concerns with respect to regulation, the associated developmental process and enforcement.

[Beefitarian]

Sometimes rules become a challenging game if people that think they are meant to be broken.

I agree with the colonel, some physical laws are more rigid.

[PilotDAR]

Most of my friends "waterski"

I appreciate being in your "friends" category CS. However, when I waterski, I do it in a plane, whose Flight Manual provides approved procedures for how it is to be done.

People wonder why Flight Manuals and instrument panels get so thick with warnings and placards.... Now, Lancair, Pitts, Cessna, Piper, Beech, Maule,......... are all going to have to include a new limitation and placard for their aircraft which reads: "Attempting to land on liquid water prohibited, unless the aircraft is equipped with floats, and the amphibious landing gear (if fitted) is retracted".

Could we not just be proud to fly and demonstrate the aircraft the way its manufacturer intended?

[CFR]

Sometimes rules become a challenging game if people that think they are meant to be broken.

I agree with the colonel, some physical laws are more rigid.

"Ya kanna change the laws of physics" - Montgomery Scott

[PilotDAR]

"Ya kanna change the laws of physics" - Montgomery Scott

Well.... "She kanna teek ani moor Captain..." But, she always did.....

[CFR]

"Ya kanna change the laws of physics" - Montgomery Scott

Well.... "She kanna teek ani moor Captain..." But, she always did.....

True, but you know that the last bit of safety margin is for the engineer not the pilot!

I wonder what the overspeed inspection is like on a Starship?

[Bobby868]

Wow absolutely astonishing, amazing, unbelievable. . . I’m not talking about the deceased pilot I’m talking about everyone who has posted so far.

Universal condemnation of someone for doing what exactly? What did this pilot do that was wrong, in anyway broke rules, regulations? I’m talking about this specific incident. So far no one has posted anything to indicate he was doing anything that was not sanctioned. In fact it seems clear he was doing exactly what he intended to do and obviously briefed others that he was going to do it.

He was a stunt pilot, hired to do stunt flying. Stunt flying by its very definition has its risks and is performed outside of the normal operation of aircraft. No one pays money to go see airplanes do what they normally do. Normal operations can be seen any day of the week just look up at the sky and follow the contrails or go to your local airport and sit at the end of the runway.

Unless someone can post something specific to this incident that points to the pilot doing something outside of what he was contracted to do then my firm opinion is this is a tragic and equal loss of life of both the pilot and passenger. Stunt pilots die every year doing risky maneuvers we the public sanction it and endorse it by paying the entry fee.

The shear callousness, self-righteousness and ignorance of some on this board is baffling.

[burhead1]

Wow absolutely astonishing, amazing, unbelievable. . . I’m not talking about the deceased pilot I’m talking about everyone who has posted so far.

Universal condemnation of someone for doing what exactly? What did this pilot do that was wrong, in anyway broke rules, regulations? I’m talking about this specific incident. So far no one has posted anything to indicate he was doing anything that was not sanctioned. In fact it seems clear he was doing exactly what he intended to do and obviously briefed others that he was going to do it.

He was a stunt pilot, hired to do stunt flying. Stunt flying by its very definition has its risks and is performed outside of the normal operation of aircraft. No one pays money to go see airplanes do what they normally do. Normal operations can be seen any day of the week just look up at the sky and follow the contrails or go to your local airport and sit at the end of the runway.

Unless someone can post something specific to this incident that points to the pilot doing something outside of what he was contracted to do then my firm opinion is this is a tragic and equal loss of life of both the pilot and passenger. Stunt pilots die every year doing risky maneuvers we the public sanction it and endorse it by paying the entry fee.

The shear callousness, self-righteousness and ignorance of some on this board is baffling.

Everything he did was perfectly fine, We should feel nothing for the passenger as they knew what they were getting into as well. WOW

[PilotDAR]

Okay, I'll play....

Unless someone can post something specific to this incident that points to the pilot doing something outside of what he was contracted to do then my firm opinion is this is a tragic and equal loss of life of both the pilot and passenger.

I have no information other than that presented in this thread. But, with that as a basis...

The fact that some drama promoter in China (I presume) "contracted" this foolish flying, does not confer upon a pilot the right to defend doing it as "acceptable". Now, I concede, I doubt that the pilot's operating information for a Lancair prohibits a deliberate intent to bring it into contact with standing water in flight, but any pilot worthy of being contracted to fly ANY aerial display, has to know that this is a remarkably bad idea for this aircraft. I have to wonder, was this the first ever attempt for this pilot, or this aircraft type? I still doubt that for a tricycle plane, it's even possible!

I have to believe that when you by a gun, it comes with a warning not to point it at people. So some show promoter contracts you to shoot apples off people's heads, and now it's okay to do that, and you can defend it when you shoot a person in the head? No.

"I was just doing what I was contracted to do, and it went a bit wrong..." No defense.

I assure you, having organized two "aviation events", which were Transport Canada approved, that there is no way that carrying a passenger during such a demonstration would be permitted, and I really doubt that any intentional contact of a wheel plane with the water, would be permitted during that event.

So, no, I don't buy it...

[Beefitarian]

Thanks for the discussion guys. I thought it was excellent before it was locked.

In the apple shooting scenario, I'm having difficulty feeling empathy for the person who might get shot.