Large B-29 Display mishap - USA

[cymaz]

Posted by Area 51 on 11/07/2014 20:32:01:

Posted by Phil Green on 11/07/2014 20:22:05:

Posted by cymaz on 11/07/2014 19:20:10:

Watching that video, if you look at the port outer engine it doesn't seem to be running as fast as the others. Anyone else see this?

SPOTTED ~ CHECK!

You can be my wingman, any time....

Roger, Roger, Leader

[Pete B]

Following the two threads over on RCG, it seems that two camps are developing - those who recognise the failings and those who are convinced the pilot did the right thing....

Right now, with the AMA engaged in difficult negotiations with the FAA, the last thing they need are modellers either trying to hush it up or argue that it's no big deal. The FAA are not going to be impressed if they're besieged by modellers who cannot see a problem.

One post outlines the display guidelines from the AMA, which sets the spectator line at 200ft, which clearly wasn't the case here. Obviously the rules exist - why they weren't followed is anybody's guess.

It's up to the AMA what course they take, of course, but I reckon they'll have to take it on the chin. There's very little which can be said in defence of the participants, I would say.

Applying sanctions to the pilot and display organisers has to be considered if the AMA are to convince the FAA that they have some control over the hobby, particularly public displays. Not an enviable situation for the AMA to find itself in, is it?

Pete

ps  I think you might find that the smoke from the starboard wing is generated as part of the display, John. This video shows how the display should be conducted (notice the smoke from the port outer, absent from the incident video):

 

Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 11/07/2014 21:30:14

[Chris Bott - Moderator]

Posted by John Privett on 11/07/2014 20:49:29:

There also appeared to be a lot of exhaust smoke from the starboard engine(s), but not from the port ones.

A big clue for him that, as he usually has smoke trailing from both outer engines. Clearly the port one wasn't blasting much out.

[PatMc]

Posted by Phil Green on 11/07/2014 20:22:05:

This video shows that he has independent throttles - and he uses that as part of the show (skip to 2:24)
Maybe a tx mix problem?

That could have been the problem. If he was mixing the outer engines' throttles with rudder & accidentaly reversed the mix or (IMO more likely) confused the R & L throttle servo connections during the pre flight assembly it would account for the apparent reluctance for the model to turn to the right during taxi as well as it veering of course during take-off.

If it had too much speed to stop by simply chopping the power before hitting the spectators the pilot should have retracted the gear as well.

[Trevor Crook]

Looking at the flag at the end of the second video, there seems to be a crosswind blowing it towards the crowd line too, which can't have helped.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

The more you look, the worse it gets. Don't know how he will ever hold another transmitter

John

[PatMc]

Posted by Trevor Crook on 11/07/2014 22:57:25:

Looking at the flag at the end of the second video, there seems to be a crosswind blowing it towards the crowd line too, which can't have helped.

The smoke trail left by the engine doesn't drift into the crowd as fast the model does so the crosswind couldn't have been that much of a factor.

[Dave Bran]

Posted by john stones 1 on 11/07/2014 23:33:47:

The more you look, the worse it gets. Don't know how he will ever hold another transmitter

John

I saw the headline and the immediate thought I had was "not him/them AGAIN". Not the first time that this "team" have been involved in incidents? Look back over the years and you decide.

[cymaz]

 

 

 

Flying Giants makes for interesting reading on the subject? Interesting point that the runway was too small and he tried to take off too soon!

The video clip on the header shows lots of smoke from the starboard side and next to nothing from the port side. I only have a twin engined Seagull Dual Ace but each engine is run separately and rpm checked and a nose up done. I cannot hear what  each engine is sounding like if the other one is going. After that I check them both together. I know you can't do a nose up with something that big but I hope they have a preflight checklist written down somewhere. I do with a couple,of my planes. It takes a lot of the worry out.

Edited By cymaz on 12/07/2014 07:19:21

Edited By cymaz on 12/07/2014 07:25:08

[scott cuppello]

RCG's take on this is very poor judgement, poor airmanship and poor organisation are absolutely to blame, the guy was lucky not to have hurt somebody badly or worse........Jason Cole has shot his credibility to pieces by writing that drivel, RCG would have been better served staying out of it......they now just look partisan at best, ignorant at worst in the eyes of the aviation community...whom US aero modellers could really do with being on-side right now.

 

 

Edited By scott cuppello on 12/07/2014 08:27:28

Edited By scott cuppello on 12/07/2014 08:29:41

[John F]

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 11/07/2014 21:24:43:

Following the two threads over on RCG, it seems that two camps are developing - those who recognise the failings and those who are convinced the pilot did the right thing....

Right now, with the AMA engaged in difficult negotiations with the FAA, the last thing they need are modellers either trying to hush it up or argue that it's no big deal. The FAA are not going to be impressed if they're besieged by modellers who cannot see a problem.

One post outlines the display guidelines from the AMA, which sets the spectator line at 200ft, which clearly wasn't the case here. Obviously the rules exist - why they weren't followed is anybody's guess.

It's up to the AMA what course they take, of course, but I reckon they'll have to take it on the chin. There's very little which can be said in defence of the participants, I would say.

Applying sanctions to the pilot and display organisers has to be considered if the AMA are to convince the FAA that they have some control over the hobby, particularly public displays. Not an enviable situation for the AMA to find itself in, is it?

Pete

ps I think you might find that the smoke from the starboard wing is generated as part of the display, John. This video shows how the display should be conducted (notice the smoke from the port outer, absent from the incident video):

Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 11/07/2014 21:30:14

I must admit the plane is impressive and its ability to be thrown around at a ridiculous non scale way but the commentator either needs a gag or more medication! "Very, very annoying commentator" does not cover it but it is as close as I can get and still keep my forum membership.

As others have said with the amount of rudder and ailerons needed and yet it still drifted he should have aborted the take off.

[Paul Marsh]

Damn, that commentator is annoying! Imaging listening to that all day, would want to blow my head off with a shotgun!!!

Thank goodness for DB Sound.

Also although impressive it totally un-scale, a B-29 doing totally un-scale stuff. Hasn't he heard of a Extra?

[Paul Jefferies]

There is a reason that in the full-size aviation world you have to do a multi engine rating before being allowed to fly multi engined aircraft. I think this incident shows the need for similar regulation in the model world and certainly before a pilot is allowed to fly in a public display. I'm afraid our B Certificate, or whatever the US equivalent may be, just isn't enough of a qualification to display a model like this safely.

Paul

[Josip Vrandecic -Mes]

Hi Phil ,Thanks .....Everything seen is interesting and exciting ... except the crazy and irritating ''south- american'' football narrator-commentator....

Jo

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

That being the case Dave, lets hope it's included in the inquest over this incident.

John

[The Wright Stuff]

I have to say I find some of the comments here a little harsh: I for one am prepared to believe that the pilot's experience means he deserves the benefit of the doubt until we have found out exactly what went wrong, or at least heard his side of the story. He must be feeling absolutely mortified about the incident. If this was Ali or Steve Holland it happened to, would we be so aggressive in calling 'pilot error', then?

I totally agree that the risk assessment and planning in the site layout is evidently completely inadequate and the plane is far far too close to the crowd.

However, looking at previous videos, the climb rate and responsiveness of the model suggests that if all had been functioning perfectly, the model should easily have been able to turn away in the climb out. This is a big model with lots of momentum - I think that by the time the need for an abort was evident, it was already too late - that model takes a lot of stopping. To me, that suggests the only other option the pilot had was to keep the model on the ground with down elevator, cut the engines, and accept it runs into the crowd. Interesting moral question: virtual certainty of hitting someone at speed at knee level, versus a reduced probability of hitting someone higher up!

The end result is that no-one was hurt. Mercifully: certainly! Lucky: probably. But perhaps the interpretation that 'the pilot's gamble paid off' isn't quite as criminal as people are making out!

From a marketing perspective, is it so bad that the public get given a hero rather than a villain? Now the investigation behind the scenes is another matter, there should be no denial or false positives there, and it is important that they get to the bottom of the incident and do absolutely everything they can to ensure this never happens again. But I can't help thinking that the whole 'dirty laundry in public' might do more harm than good. Sometimes you have to look beyond the immediate details and look at the bigger picture.

Finally, thank goodness DB wasn't commentating. It would be all about brown trousers and "he's American, you know"...

 

 

 

 

 

Edited By The Wright Stuff on 12/07/2014 11:00:07

[kevin b]

I hope the result of the enquiry gets as much publicity as the video of the incident and it shouldn't be dragged on too long either.

Just to put things into perspective, think back to the Concorde crash. It was known that the fuel tanks needed extra protection and that the aircraft was overloaded, but the pilot and operators still flew it.

[scott cuppello]

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 12/07/2014 10:59:22:

I have to say I find some of the comments here a little harsh: I for one am prepared to believe that the pilot's experience means he deserves the benefit of the doubt until we have found out exactly what went wrong, or at least heard his side of the story. He must be feeling absolutely mortified about the incident. If this was Ali or Steve Holland it happened to, would we be so aggressive in calling 'pilot error', then?

I totally agree that the risk assessment and planning in the site layout is evidently completely inadequate and the plane is far far too close to the crowd.

However, looking at previous videos, the climb rate and responsiveness of the model suggests that if all had been functioning perfectly, the model should easily have been able to turn away in the climb out. This is a big model with lots of momentum - I think that by the time the need for an abort was evident, it was already too late - that model takes a lot of stopping. To me, that suggests the only other option the pilot had was to keep the model on the ground with down elevator, cut the engines, and accept it runs into the crowd. Interesting moral question: virtual certainty of hitting someone at speed at knee level, versus a reduced probability of hitting someone higher up!

The end result is that no-one was hurt. Mercifully: certainly! Lucky: probably. But perhaps the interpretation that 'the pilot's gamble paid off' isn't quite as criminal as people are making out!

From a marketing perspective, is it so bad that the public get given a hero rather than a villain? Now the investigation behind the scenes is another matter, there should be no denial or false positives there, and it is important that they get to the bottom of the incident and do absolutely everything they can to ensure this never happens again. But I can't help thinking that the whole 'dirty laundry in public' might do more harm than good. Sometimes you have to look beyond the immediate details and look at the bigger picture.

Finally, thank goodness DB wasn't commentating. It would be all about brown trousers and "he's American, you know"...

 

 

 

 

 

Edited By The Wright Stuff on 12/07/2014 11:00:07

 

If you want to fly at displays......you must be prepared for the inevitable criticism when it all goes wrong and what has previous experience to do with anything? I have seen people who have flown for 40+ years who still cause me anxiety every time they take off.

Can we clear something up.....airmanship is not how good you are at waggling sticks......that crash was a direct result of poor airmanship......the field was arguably too small, there was a crosswind toward the crowd and the flightline was far too close to the crowd.....that's it, forget the rest of the theories, they are not relevant.......to fly in the first place was a poor decision......that experience you admire is exactly why this crash happened, over-confidence overcame airmanship......that is the basis on which this incident should be judged......which means the flight line director is at least as much to blame.

Edited By scott cuppello on 12/07/2014 11:38:44

Edited By scott cuppello on 12/07/2014 12:02:19

[Dave Bran]

Posted by john stones 1 on 12/07/2014 10:00:25:

That being the case Dave, lets hope it's included in the inquest over this incident.

John

Search around these dates.............September 2008 (stated as sheared wing while in deliberate flat spin) , March 2010 (stated as non recovery from deliberate spin due one engine fail), and August 2010 (stated as a gust of wind while super low over runway inverted), for starters.

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by scott cuppello on 12/07/2014 11:30:33:

what has previous experience to do with anything? I have seen people who have flown for 40+ years who still cause me anxiety every time they take off.

Come on: those 40+ years people certainly exist, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Experience has to count for something: otherwise how else can we possibly judge people's decision making in any sort of context?

Totally agree that airmanship clearly isn't just about waggling sticks, but the waggling sticks bit was certainly part of the 'B' test the last time I checked...

[J D 8]

Look's like a classic case of aileron reversal effect at the end of the flight,down aileron drag overcoming the normal result of putting in right ail,but agree with Scott should not have got that far in the first place. Had an interesting moment at our club show some years ago when a very large Catalina had engine problems and had to land in a limited space,no one hurt but modelers preparing for the next slot had to scatter and some planes were squashed. Put in a size limit after that. There are old pilots and there are are bold pilots but there are NO old bold pilots!

[John Privett]

I was searching last night on RC Groups for the thread(s) on this crash and kept coming across reports of previous crashes of his B29's. Apparently this one is the 4th or 5th airframe - previous ones having been written-off.

I'm not sure if that just means he flies a lot or is very experienced.... in crashing.

[scott cuppello]

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 12/07/2014 12:08:42:

Posted by scott cuppello on 12/07/2014 11:30:33:

what has previous experience to do with anything? I have seen people who have flown for 40+ years who still cause me anxiety every time they take off.

Come on: those 40+ years people certainly exist, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Experience has to count for something: otherwise how else can we possibly judge people's decision making in any sort of context?

Totally agree that airmanship clearly isn't just about waggling sticks, but the waggling sticks bit was certainly part of the 'B' test the last time I checked...

Stick waggling is PART of airmanship.........decision making is a larger part.......experience didn't count for much in this case did it?

[Pete B]

Harsh comments perhaps, TWS, but fully justified. The strongest criticism must come from fellow model flyers, if only to convince the authorities that we are serious about safety. If we make apologetic noises, those authorities will impose their version of safety rules and that won't be very pretty.

Tough on the pilot, yes, but he and the organisers really ought to be hauled over the coals for allowing that to occur - and they did allow it to occur because they flagrantly ignored all the established rules and good practise. That wasn't an accident - it was gross irresponsibility.

Pete

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Admittedly, with the benefit of having time to analyse the situation, I would contend that chopping the throttles, killing the engines and applying full right rudder would have resulted in either slight embarrassment but approval from those with relevant knowledge or a worst case scenario of a few damaged legs. Thankfully the action taken did result in no injuries but there was the potential for multiple serious injuries or fatalities by continuing the take-off.

Good airmanship is considering the situation before take-off...most relevantly here, what will I do if the model swings on take-off? But basic airmanship should have made him consider the proximity of the crowd line - at a minimum, perhaps positioning at the extreme right hand edge of the runway but I would have queried the positioning of the crowd line in the first place. Assuming US air law is similar in respect to model flying, it is always the pilot's responsibility to ensure the flight's safety and although the organisers could be held partly responsible, he should have refused to fly if there was a possibility of putting the crowd at any conceivable risk.