Been thinking about this a lot over the last 2 days, and it is certainly a tough one to process, for many reasons.

Air crashes are still the baby of the media, the more dead the more sensational, but usually they are limited to the passengers of the aircraft. When little planes crash, it's usually just the pilot, or less than 4 people that perish, and everyone, including us, brush it off, compartmentalizing the proof of the risks we are already aware of. When someone puts a 172 into the roof of a residence and burns the place to the ground... I cringe the most at those accidents, because it confirms the worst anxiety of the general public: That we are death from above, waiting to happen.

But this accident was a different beast... High profile aircraft, unexplained loss of control, high energy impact, and high losses to those on the ground-- who were there to spectate the very thing that hurt them. There's no bad guy, no negligence, nothing to point at and direct anger. We as pilots are used to dealing with that dearth of culprit. But the media is digging for something, yet all they have is that it's dangerous, and it does slip nicely into the docket of fear-media. I was actually quite relieved to see some positive articles on Leeward and air racing in general to balance out the expected criticism of the sport and dangers of flying to ground-dwellers. Then I kind of feel guilty for feeling defensive about such things, while people are in body bags or laying in the hospital missing limbs.

I flew to Alpine for breakfast this AM (65 miles), and it wasn't until I was sitting at the cafe counter that I recalled that for years the same joint had been called the Red Baron. It was owned by a guy named Ed Brown who at one time owned the prop plane speed record in his P-51, "the Red Baron" All kinds of aircraft memorbilia on the walls and sometimes old Ed himself was there so it was a great breakfast fly to spot, still is. He died a few years back, and the cafe changed hands but damn this morning I really missed him, he more then most would know what the heck happened or at least give out some good theories.

I too have not had much mental time off since I heard the news. What keeps coming up for me is the aforementioned fear of loosing something very important to me, but also a fierce loathing for certain types of media personalies. The prevalent one perhaps.

Why is Nascar the number one spectator sport in America? Why do many of us still race around on VERY fast motorcycles? Make your own list; bungee jumping, rock climbing, offshore racing in little boats, parachuting from aircraft that are not on fire. On and on.

Jimmy Doolittle, perhaps history's finest aviator, or like all of us here, ONE of the history's finest aviators, once said; "People don't go to air shows to see a crash. But if there is going to BE a crash, they want to be there to see it."

This comment, or judgement if you will, has stuck in my mind very near the top all these many years since I first read it. It's a keen observation on natural man's natural affinities. It has a corollary. We'll call it "Emory's Corollary" for today. It can't be original, as it is stated in one form or another almost daily, here and on every other aviation forum I view. "People don't view allaying their private fears as having consequence on the Freedom of others, but when it comes to fear, they'll sacrifice anybody's freedom to allay those fears." Or something like that.

I have yet to meet the person who's ears don't perk up when they find out I'm a pilot. Most say, "thats a dream of mine". Yet, the sure and steady erosion of general aviation through administrative rule making continues. I'm very proud to be a part of GA since the '60s. I've scared the crap out of myself quite a few times. Flying remains, though, as necessary as breathing. I hope I can continue in one form or another for the rest of my days.

GumpAir wrote:

Jaerl wrote:Here is a video showing G loc. It doesn't take any time at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuPTi4rcCV0

"Steve, are you with me?"

Poor bastard's gonna have brain damage if they keep doing that to him.

Gump

A bit of levity,

Gump your comment brought back a fun memory of my oldest daughter. When she was just 16 years old I owned a 260HP Skybolt....an open cockpit, aerobatic, biplane. Anyhow Leigh wanted me to take her up and do some aerobatics. After the usual loops, rolls and spins she asked for something more exciting. So I did a series 3 hammerheads with 6 g pullups. Each time after we would complete the maneuver she would ask to do it again.

After the third one she said....."dad that is so neat how I black out each time going vertical and come too as we are recovering headed straight down." Oh my gosh I said to her. I had no idea that she was passing out. She, on the other hand, just thought that it was part of the thrill. I then briefed her on sucking in a deep breath and grunting against the diaphragm to avoid blacking out as we pulled the Gs.

We did a couple more and she stayed wide awake. But somehow....she still thought that blacking out was kool.

Bob

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

This is one of my favorite quotes. It applies to so much of what is going on in the world (USA) today. I have the right to risk my life for my own personal gain. That is part of being free. I will go out of my way to not risk the lives or property of others, but if by some chance uncontrollable by me, I do damage property, injure someone, or worse, that is the risk we all have to accept as people who live in a free society.
I have had the cops called on me before for riding too fast on mountain roads in the middle of nowhere. I am respectful of passing other cars, I don't want to die or run someone off the road. I choose equipment that is quiet as possible (ok, some of my Ducati's are a little loud) and I wear top notch protective gear. Yet, Joe Public has on several occasions (only once for me, but I know others who have had trouble) called to report "wreckless" driving. I wonder if these are the same people who are so affraid of terrorism they are asking for 24 hour video surveillance of their neighborhoods (People recently had a vigil in Seattles Bell Town area demanding this be done)
You can't have it both ways. I have never been to the Reno Air Races. I really want to go. I understand that I can be hurt by falling objects, breathing in toxic fumes, or killed by an out of control aircraft. I accept that risk, no one is forcing me to go, in fact just the opposite, I am paying to enjoy that risk.
As far as a 172 hitting a home and burning it to the ground. Again, we live in a country that is (or at least was) founded on the principal of personal freedoms. Just as I have the freedom to fly over your house in a 35 year old airplane, as long as I have proven I am capable and it has been proven that the aircraft is airworthy, others have the freedom to drive down the road after a snow storm, after of course they have proven that they can maintain at least minimal control of a 6000 pound car while parking between cones. I also have the right to walk, jog or bike next to that same ice covered road.
Being free is not "free" as in there are asociated costs and risks involved. I could go on and on, but I am probably preaching to the choir.
It was a sad and unfortunate thing that happened, and for many of us the missfortune will continue in the form of restrictions and a public dis-taste (even more so than we have now) of any aerobatic displays or show in the future.

D.

Very well said David. I totally agree. Freedoms include the freedom to take a risk. Little would be accomplished if no one did. That sais. My condolences to everyone affected by this incident.

Another of my favorites. " A ship in the harbour is safe, but that is not what ships are made for."

aktahoe1 wrote:You can fly with a missing aileron, rudder, etc. You cant do much with an elevator problem.

Many times, yes you can.

If the elevator locks or becomes disconnected in a neutral "cruise position", you can roll the airplane on its side and use the rudder to swing the nose up, at the same moment you roll it back level. Done in the right rhythm this will give you a climb.

If the elevator locks or becomes disconnected in a nose-up position, you can use rudder and/or ailerons in a series of steep banks to let the nose drop when you want it to, to prevent the nose from coming up too far.

If the elevator locks or comes loose in a nose down position, you can do a series of aileron rolls, where the time interval you let it linger in inverted flight allows the nose to come up above the horizon.

Using these really crude and un-coordinated techniques, it is possible (in a REAL emergency) to control the altitude and descent rate to make a controlled crash and have a fair change of surviving. The British aerobatic pilot Neil Williams once saved himself by doing the "inverted" technique in a Zlin after the wing folded upwards in positive G.

Any old-school model airplane builder can tell you that the only control you absolutely cannot do without in an airplane is the rudder. Although it will be no fun inside the airplane, you can indeed fly without elevators, ailerons or engines.

EZFlap wrote:

aktahoe1 wrote:You can fly with a missing aileron, rudder, etc. You cant do much with an elevator problem.

Many times, yes you can.

If the elevator locks or becomes disconnected in a neutral "cruise position", you can roll the airplane on its side and use the rudder to swing the nose up, at the same moment you roll it back level. Done in the right rhythm this will give you a climb.

If the elevator locks or becomes disconnected in a nose-up position, you can use rudder and/or ailerons in a series of steep banks to let the nose drop when you want it to, to prevent the nose from coming up too far.

If the elevator locks or comes loose in a nose down position, you can do a series of aileron rolls, where the time interval you let it linger in inverted flight allows the nose to come up above the horizon.

Using these really crude and un-coordinated techniques, it is possible (in a REAL emergency) to control the altitude and descent rate to make a controlled crash and have a fair change of surviving. The British aerobatic pilot Neil Williams once saved himself by doing the "inverted" technique in a Zlin after the wing folded upwards in positive G.

Any old-school model airplane builder can tell you that the only control you absolutely cannot do without in an airplane is the rudder. Although it will be no fun inside the airplane, you can indeed fly without elevators, ailerons or engines.

Are you saying you would rather loose elevator than rudder and still be able to land safely?

EZFlap wrote:

aktahoe1 wrote:You can fly with a missing aileron, rudder, etc. You cant do much with an elevator problem.

Many times, yes you can.

If the elevator locks or becomes disconnected in a neutral "cruise position", you can roll the airplane on its side and use the rudder to swing the nose up, at the same moment you roll it back level. Done in the right rhythm this will give you a climb.

If the elevator locks or becomes disconnected in a nose-up position, you can use rudder and/or ailerons in a series of steep banks to let the nose drop when you want it to, to prevent the nose from coming up too far.

If the elevator locks or comes loose in a nose down position, you can do a series of aileron rolls, where the time interval you let it linger in inverted flight allows the nose to come up above the horizon.

Using these really crude and un-coordinated techniques, it is possible (in a REAL emergency) to control the altitude and descent rate to make a controlled crash and have a fair change of surviving. The British aerobatic pilot Neil Williams once saved himself by doing the "inverted" technique in a Zlin after the wing folded upwards in positive G.

Any old-school model airplane builder can tell you that the only control you absolutely cannot do without in an airplane is the rudder. Although it will be no fun inside the airplane, you can indeed fly without elevators, ailerons or engines.

Not so certain I agree with that EZ. Unless your Patty Wagstaff or Ken Peach, along with a few others, I am pretty certain I would much rather loose a rudder. Heck, birds dont have rudders, however, they do have elevators. You can turn a plane without using your feet. Its pretty hard to go up or down without an elevator.

Saw an A-4 land on a carrier once with no rudder, shot off, but landed OK. Not this one... this guy stepped out.

Courier, you are totally right about Ed Browning...we were in business together a long time ago...was a great individual.

the P51 you are talking about cost him millions to build, with the rolls motor and counter-rotating props...think they called that one the "flying undertaker..."

if i remember correctly, it also went down out in the sagebrush at reno also, but seems like the pilot walked away...!

Just got back from being com-out in Yosemite all weekend...unbelievable. I'm glad all of you that were there are OK.

I didnt read all the posts but we had 4 of the T-6s there. The 51 guys run with so much down trim they are known for shredding trim tabs. Probably 12+gs when you loose one going that fast. Add a highly modified seat assembly in the mix with blacking out and you get a tragic result. Its such a great loss in so many ways.

Lets turn the page and move on.

EZFlap wrote:

aktahoe1 wrote:You can fly with a missing aileron, rudder, etc. You cant do much with an elevator problem.

Many times, yes you can.

If the elevator locks or becomes disconnected in a neutral "cruise position", you can roll the airplane on its side and use the rudder to swing the nose up, at the same moment you roll it back level. Done in the right rhythm this will give you a climb.

If the elevator locks or becomes disconnected in a nose-up position, you can use rudder and/or ailerons in a series of steep banks to let the nose drop when you want it to, to prevent the nose from coming up too far.

If the elevator locks or comes loose in a nose down position, you can do a series of aileron rolls, where the time interval you let it linger in inverted flight allows the nose to come up above the horizon.

Using these really crude and un-coordinated techniques, it is possible (in a REAL emergency) to control the altitude and descent rate to make a controlled crash and have a fair change of surviving. The British aerobatic pilot Neil Williams once saved himself by doing the "inverted" technique in a Zlin after the wing folded upwards in positive G.

Any old-school model airplane builder can tell you that the only control you absolutely cannot do without in an airplane is the rudder. Although it will be no fun inside the airplane, you can indeed fly without elevators, ailerons or engines.

Bob Hoover tops them all,

Way back when...he took off in (I believe) an F-86 for a test flight out in the L.A. area. Upon rotation the aircraft pitched up with an uncontrollable stabilizer/elevator. He could not get the nose down. So he did a series of hammerhead stalls, climbing vertically, chopping the power at the top, ruddering over the top into a vertical desent. Upon bottoming out he would had full power, the nose would pitch up into another hammerhead. He did this over and over....ruddering the aircraft around at the top. Thus he managed to circle so that his last hammerhead had him lined up with the end of a runway, nose pointed straight down. Just before impacting the runway vertically he added power and brought the nose up into a landing attitude....then chopped the power and slammed it onto the runway. Got out and walked away. I'll have to get out my old VCR tape to get the facts exactly right. But that is how it was done.

However even Bob Hoover, in his prime, would not have likely been able to get the Ghost back on the ground safely at Reno.

Bob

p.s. Not every Ace is in a fighter or aerobatic airplane. About 25 years ago a Delta Airlines crew took off from California in an L-1011. The stabilizer jammed while in climb. The were able to roll it over on it's side, get it into a somewhat level flight attitude and then control the pitch by differential power between the upper tail engine and the underwing engines. Got it back on the ground safely with no injuries.

And of course CA Al Haynes and crew "flew" the United DC-10 from altitude to a crash landing at Sioux City, Iowa without any flight controls what so ever. The crew used differential engine power to waddle her around. More than 1/2 of the passengers and the crew survived that crash landing. Fantastic aviators.

GumpAir wrote:

Jaerl wrote:Here is a video showing G loc. It doesn't take any time at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuPTi4rcCV0

"Steve, are you with me?"

Poor bastard's gonna have brain damage if they keep doing that to him.

Gump

OOPS!!! To late!

Terry wrote:
Are you saying you would rather loose elevator than rudder and still be able to land safely?

No, I would rather lose a rudder and keep the elevator... as long as I still had ailerons.

But if I honestly had to pick only one control to have, because all the others had failed, you bet your ass I would pick the rudder and I would have the best chance to be able to get the airplane down and walk away.

Although admittedly not a direct comparison and no lives at stake, the old-time early radio controlled aircraft all flew with rudder only. With practice they were able to execute passable loops, rolls, spins, and hammerheads with rudder only. Never heard of aileron-only or elevator-only model airplanes. Of course with R/C models you were able to set it up to make rudder-only control work well. Chances are in a "real" airplane you will not have that luxury. But the basic principle is the same with full-sized aircraft.

aktahoe1 wrote:
Not so certain I agree with that EZ....

My response was not to say that you'd want to lose an elevator... of course you would not. My response was primarily to address the comment that you can't do much with a busted elevator. You can.

But as for which one control I would want if I could only have one, I stand by my personal experience flying rudder only models and would indeed stake my life on that choice if I could only choose one.

This is an interesting response from Howie Keefe (famous racer and pilot) (he flew Mrs America for years)

RENO Crash
Howie Keefe writes:


I doubt the loss of an elevator trim caused Jimmy to dive in. At those
speeds, we usually have a slight nose down trim. What might have happened
is that if the trim blew off and he suddenly started to climb at what I
called the Devil's Corner** it distracted him enough that caused him to go wide
on the turn and in trying to get back as to not over fly the deadline
ahead, he pulled back too hard and went into a high speed stall that, as one
witness said, looked like he went into an involuntary lomcevak ( a
sommersault.)

I had that going wide at Devil's corner and choose to go behind the stands
once and be disqualified rather then risk a high speed stall trying a
tight turn to get back before the deadline came up. Cutting the deadline (a
line down the center of the runway that starts where the stands start, not
down where the pits start) that in all air shows the FAA says must be 2,000
feet away from the crowd line, can cost you not only being disqualified, but
also the FAA may cancel your license. But going behind the stands is
considered by the FAA as making a wise decision, but, naturally you have to be
disqualified for leaving the race course in that particular race.

** I called it the Devil's Corner, because it is the only pylon turn on
the race course where if you go wide, you have to immediately decide to make
the Devil's Decision of going behind the stands or risk a high speed stall
to get back before the deadline starts. What makes it a critical point is
that the turn comes at the end of a straightaway where you are going your
fastest--its easily a mile long and you are going "downhill" from about a
200' higher altitude that adds to your "flat & level" speed---really
screaming. In my 11 years of Unlimited Air Racing at Reno, I must have come at
that pylon over 500 times reminding myself to start my turn at least 3
seconds before getting there so as not to go too wide. Being distracted in
those few seconds is critical.

I recall one race where Bob Hoover, who flew the pace plane to start our
races and after the start flew overhead to keep an eye out for any problems,
uncharacteristically dropped down on the race course flying a normally
speed. I came upon him about a half-mile short of Devil's Corner and called
out for him to hold his course because I was going to pass and make a turn
right in front of him. He immediately left the course and later
apologized.

Howie Keefe

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sounds like Howie has it right. The trim tab was still on the elevator
hanging by the left edge during the octofleugeron. Certainly a distraction
but not enough effect, I would think, on the elevator to throw it full nose
up although at the apex of the climb the aircraft rolled 180 degrees and
with the nose still pulling as if in full nose up elevator which put the
aircraft into a split S high speed down to impact. The elevator as he was
diving in looked level as though no pressure was on the stick at that time.
Perhaps the hard turning high G pull up caused Jimmie to black out and the
rest we watched on video. Jimmie surely would have pulled the throttle back
to idle and held full back stick for pull out and away from the stands if
he was conscious and from the videos I could not see or hear any evidence of
that.

Rest in Peace Quiet Birdman Jimmie Leeward! Ocala Hangar. Gone West
9-16-11.

Clink, Glug, Smash!
Mofak

Kevin

My thought is that his theory does not account for the photographs that document that the pilots head is not visible in the normal flying position in the last moments which would tend to support the idea that he was unconscious...unless as you say a voluntary emergency maneuver caused LOC, which I find dubious.

I myself believe the g-loc theory. In all the videos of people passing out, they all fall forward. Plus he was in a dive which would have added to the effect. Otherwise why would he have his head down? A man of this caliber would certainly have been trying to avoid the crowd if he could have, and that would require flying the plane.

There is more video out now and it is quite graphic. I'll let you find it if you want. The people who died on scene probably never felt a thing. We all won't be so lucky. God rest their souls.