#21
|
||||
|
||||
Aaron, I’ll beg to differ with you on this specific point, though it is widely believed. I’ve worked on quite a few aircraft of this vintage, and shoddy workmanship is uncommon. U.S. aircraft were well built to the standards of the day (which haven’t changed much since then), and usually had good corrosion protection. That green color on the interior? That’s zinc chromate, a corrosion preventative treatment. The workers were not amateurs; they were working in a factory with training and thorough inspections. Even Japanese aircraft, built under horrible conditions (bombed factories with very limited equipment) were built as well as possible. The one exception (in my experience) is German equipment when it was being built by slave labor. Those workers would attempt to sabotage the aircraft if they could do it in such a way as to escape detection by the inspectors.
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Spent many a night in hotel bars with NTSB air safety investigators, some of whom had served as Investigator-in-Charge on crashes involving CAA aircraft. My comments about high-performance aircraft and youthful reflexes were things they said, not me. It should be noted the NTSB does not regular. It can only advise. The FAA (or the other regulatory agencies the Board deals with) isn’t required to turn NTSB recommendations into law. (As an aside, the flight that was the subject of my article originated at the same airport involved here, Dallas Executive Airport, then known as Redbird Airport. Even spent a day in their tower.) |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
I meant CAF aircraft, not CAA….
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
since you quoted my last posting:
I never questioned your credentials nor your input, so not sure why you added those on top of my quote? I said the same thing. NTSB will investigate. The findings will be read by the FAA and involved parties and jurisdictions ( since it is on USA soil ). Then The FAA makes any regulatory changes they see fit ( or not ). I did not say they have to adopt anyone's recommendations. However, they will take the NTSB report to heart in making any decisions and changes. My last line was that I predict, they will make changes to the way airshows are conducted. That may or may not happen. Isaac
__________________
My gallery [http://www.papermodelers.com/gallery...v-r-6&cat=500] Recent buildsMeteor F1, Meteor F8, Mig-Ye8, NA Sabre, A-4E Skyhawk,Mig-15 red, Mig-17 repaint |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Meant to say the NTSB does not regulate, instead of regular.
The background was added to stress that the high-performance aircraft/youthful reflexes issue is not just the goofy opinion of some random cardmodeler on the interwebs. It is the insight of people who have actually been NTSB IICs on crashes involving vintage warbirds. |
Google Adsense |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The issue with younger pilots is that it's easier to take younger people that aren't already essential to industry, have a more spongy brain to quickly learn a new skill set and memorize stuff, and get them to fight for something without as many questions... and keep them enthusiastic about fighting long enough to get them engaged in combat. Older guys with kids are just gonna have a harder time accepting things. Quote:
__________________
Ryan Short Aerial / Commercial Photographer at www.RedWingAerials.com Models for sale at: www.lbirds.com and a few more that I'm looking for a place to sell them again. |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Aren’t reflexes necessary for staying ahead of your airplane and maintaining situational awareness?
And at this point in the investigation, NOTHING is ruled out. The P-63 might have been in great shape mechanically when it left the ground, but things can change quickly. That’s why IICs keep an open mind. Every possible cause is considered until it has been ruled out. As laymen uninvolved in the investigation, we don’t know enough to rule anything out yet. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
re·flex 1. an action that is performed as a response to a stimulus and without conscious thought. I would argue that some older pilots, up to a point where they start to degrade, which varies by individual, might have better reflexes in certain circumstances, because certain activities can become so natural that they take a very small amount of brain effort. It very much depends on proficiency, but there are things that get transferred to your subconscious actions by repeated use. You don't have to think about breathing, even coughing, because your brain can kind of do those things automatically, while you may have to work harder to eat, walk, and balance at the same time. Same for an older pilot who's still sharp and fit. It has to do with brain stuff... The Science of Thinking - YouTube Quote:
__________________
Ryan Short Aerial / Commercial Photographer at www.RedWingAerials.com Models for sale at: www.lbirds.com and a few more that I'm looking for a place to sell them again. |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
As a non-native English speaker, it's perhaps risky to join the conversation but as a private pilot myself, perhaps I should. Ever since I got my license almost 20 years ago, I've been reading accident reports, especially on general aviation under VFR conditions. In many cases human error turns out to be the cause of accidents or incidents, not technical reasons, despite the fact that many of the GA planes we fly in are Pipers or Cessnas of say 40 years old. Not as old as war birds, but still, airplanes of considerable age.
Pilot age can be a factor (although I know GA pilots who are well in their seventies and who still pass medical checks and are exemplary if it comes to flight preparation), experience (instructors always say that experience can be a death trap due to complacency, as younger pilots tend to do things more by the book), tunnel vision (too much focused on one specific circumstance or actions), loss of situational awareness, in fact everything that has been described in this thread as potential cause of the accident is possible, but it will be very likely that none of these individual possible causes is solely responsible. I always have to think about the Tenerife disaster in March 1977. None of the individual links of the chain caused the accident, but all linked together they became a chain from which at some point in time no escape was possible anymore. No more maneuvering space as to say. Accident inevitable. In the end the action of one of the pilots was decisive (and for this the KLM captain got the blame) but in the total picture many more people contributed to the eventual disaster. It's all speculation at this point and that's why the work of the NTSB or any similar organization in other countries, is so very important. To learn from it and to try as a pilot to prevent yourself from finding yourself in a similar situation at some point in time, or as organization to prevent such horrible accidents from happening again. Looking at it from this perspective, it doesn't matter who was at fault or responsible. It doesn't turn back time or the loss of lives. My deepest respect for the people who keep on flying those legendary airplanes, organize events to make this possible and to the many more who ensure these aircraft are kept airworthy. Learning from what happened is the perhaps the best way to honor the pilots who lost their lives in this tragic accident. Erik |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
I have been following this thread with interest bcs I wonder what happened. I saw the videos, and read the news reports with no real answers. I am only an enthusiast, not an expert by any means. If the aircraft were in good shape, as it appears they were, then I would wager a bet the end result will be "Pilot Error". Not that the aircrew were not skillful and experienced, just that something (perhaps weather. a bird strike, health issue) happened the pilots did not have time to react to. Nevertheless, it is a very sad situation all across the board.
|
Google Adsense |
|
|