AvWeb blog ref Ghost

[Big_Jim]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

He seems to have a problem with boil-off systems, airframe modifications, and the general fact that air racers are modified to go fast. The manner in which the author writes implies a strong distaste for go-fast modifications, in my opinion.

Just my personal observations...but I did not come away with a feeling of that at all.

[Leo]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

After reading the report, listening to the conference, the gist of it all was not Air Racing in general, or modified racers. It WAS about the lack of testing done on those mods, the casual attitude that displayed about their effect on anything but speed.
The plane DID enter a place where it was untried and where a fairly small lapse in attention to detail proved catastrophic.

[AirRaceFan]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

Can you share with me the DECADES OF HISTORY the Galloping Ghost has? If you read the material in the NTSB Docket, it is clear this is not the airframe which raced at Cleveland. It did not have decades of incident free laps around the pylons, especially in the final configuration.

It was not my intent to imply that GG had the kind of history you are referring to.

What I meant to convey - the kind of history I am referring to - is that GG (like any air racer) has been damaged, repaired, rebuilt, modified, tweaked, bent, un-bent, and repaired again NUMEROUS times over the years. Things have happened - there are skeletons in the closet, so to speak. THAT is the kind of history I'm talking about. And I don't think this is unique to GG - how many times have we seen teams thrash all through Saturday night to make the Sunday gold? All of these planes have been modified, repaired, tweaked, etc. countless times - they all have "history."

That's what I meant.

You are delusional. no one is pointing the finger at anyone without fact based documentation provided by the NTSB. You are the one with the bias.

I have no bias for or against GG or Jimmy. I never met the man, never saw GG fly, and GG wasn't the #1 Mustang on my personal list of favorites either. I take no issue with the NTSB report, I think it's factual and proper, exactly what I have come to expect from the NTSB in their accident investigations (they do a damn good job, I think).

My only issue is with the way that the blog author wrote his interpretation of the NTSB report - his commentary comes across to me as condescending towards racing, with commentary that is applicable to every plane in Gold. All the planes are significantly modified, all the planes are pushing limits, etc.; so to keep pointing this out comes across as the author trying to say that something is wrong with modifications and pushing limits.

For example:

the FAA had no records on any of this except the boiler. The owners hadn't reported the rest. Given that Reno racers are experimental, I'm not sure they're required to. Yet had they done so, opined the board, the agency would likely have demanded more flight trials to prove the mods.

So, the owners very likely complied with all relevant FAA requirements, but we are going to hold them in contempt anyways? It comes across as an attempt to smear the owners - the owners are "bad" because they did not report most of their modifications.

The author COULD have wrote this instead:

"There are no requirements for reporting these modifications. As a result, there was never an opportunity for the FAA structures guy to take a peak at the changes to offer suggestions. Increased reporting requirements of modifications may be an additional step to improve safety."

It's just my interpretation, but I think the latter example is neutral and balanced, whereas what the author wrote is not.

[King]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

Going up in an airplane that you had specific doubts would bring you back home (i.e. "on a wing and a prayer") would be egregious and unconscionable.

I guarantee you Jimmy thought GG was safe and would bring him back to the tarmac, to the same level of certainty that any air racer can have about a Gold class machine.

Really??

Jimmy was a pretty good pilot, as everyone knows, and had plenty if time in many many different kind of aircraft.

I am sure that he knew things were not exactly right (although he thought it was manageable I am sure) when he had to fly GG with the stick stuffed over in the upper right hand corner of the cockpit while turning left.

Any pilot would think "wow, this is interesting I wonder what the problem is and can I correct it".

[King]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

It was not my intent to imply that GG had the kind of history you are referring to.

What I meant to convey - the kind of history I am referring to - is that GG (like any air racer) has been damaged, repaired, rebuilt, modified, tweaked, bent, un-bent, and repaired again NUMEROUS times over the years. Things have happened - there are skeletons in the closet, so to speak. THAT is the kind of history I'm talking about. And I don't think this is unique to GG - how many times have we seen teams thrash all through Saturday night to make the Sunday gold? All of these planes have been modified, repaired, tweaked, etc. countless times - they all have "history."

That's what I meant.



I have no bias for or against GG or Jimmy. I never met the man, never saw GG fly, and GG wasn't the #1 Mustang on my personal list of favorites either. I take no issue with the NTSB report, I think it's factual and proper, exactly what I have come to expect from the NTSB in their accident investigations (they do a damn good job, I think).

My only issue is with the way that the blog author wrote his interpretation of the NTSB report - his commentary comes across to me as condescending towards racing, with commentary that is applicable to every plane in Gold. All the planes are significantly modified, all the planes are pushing limits, etc.; so to keep pointing this out comes across as the author trying to say that something is wrong with modifications and pushing limits.

For example:



So, the owners very likely complied with all relevant FAA requirements, but we are going to hold them in contempt anyways? It comes across as an attempt to smear the owners - the owners are "bad" because they did not report most of their modifications.

The author COULD have wrote this instead:

"There are no requirements for reporting these modifications. As a result, there was never an opportunity for the FAA structures guy to take a peak at the changes to offer suggestions. Increased reporting requirements of modifications may be an additional step to improve safety."

It's just my interpretation, but I think the latter example is neutral and balanced, whereas what the author wrote is not.

Except that there IS a requirement to report any and all major modifications to an experimental aircraft to your local FSDO holding your Operating Limitations.

If you make a major change to your experimental aircraft, then typically the FAA holding your Operating Limitations will require a flight test period to be flown off where you have to show that the aircraft is controllable throughout all maneuvers expected to be flown in that aircraft. Then you are required to make a log book statement and provide a signature that you have performed those maneuvers and that the airplane is safe to operate.

[AirRaceFan]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

Really??

Jimmy was a pretty good pilot, as everyone knows, and had plenty if time in many many different kind of aircraft.

I am sure that he knew things were not exactly right (although he thought it was manageable I am sure) when he had to fly GG with the stick stuffed over in the upper right hand corner of the cockpit while turning left.

Any pilot would think "wow, this is interesting I wonder what the problem is and can I correct it".

Disclosure: I have not followed the GG story with intense scrutiny over the past year. I saw the aftermath on the live web stream last year, I've read the NTSB report, and I've checked in with this forum from time to time to see what's going on, but I have not read every last post and comment.

With that said: this is the first time I have read that GG was so ill handling that it took forward/right stick input to make GG roll left and turn.

Further, I will also readily agree that ANY aircraft suffering from double control reversal (in pitch and roll) has no place on the race course.

If GG was suffering from control reversal at race speeds, then mea culpa.

[flyingjibus]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

My point is the writer of the article points out facts from the NTSB documents and half of the posters on this site say he made it up, knows nothing and he must hate air racing.

from the article:

there was strong evidence that the airplane was coming apart…. In lap two of the accident race, the imagery showed deformation in the aircraft's skin, indicative of overloading, and a visible crack or gap opened in the canopy. Wouldn't the latter have been evident to the pilot? The conclusion seems to be that it should have been. Why it wasn't is a mystery.

The parts in blue are fact. The parts in red are conjecture and misinformed opinion.


Both of theose things are common occurrences with many of the top level planes. The way this is written portrays those things as huge red flags. They are not. This demonstrates a lack of knowledge on air racing.

[AirRaceFan]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

Except that there IS a requirement to report any and all major modifications to an experimental aircraft to your local FSDO holding your Operating Limitations.

So why did the author not simply state "the owners were not in compliance with FAA regulations concerning the reporting and testing of modifications"? If there is a compliance issue, then say so.

I still don't get the purpose of the blog article, and now it comes across even worse to me - the author didn't do the necessary research to determine the reporting requirements for experimental, instead choosing to go with a line that comes across as "well gee I don't know the requirements, but it sure looks bad...." That's just stirring up crap drama and emotions. It would have been better to say:

"In addition, the owners non-compliance with FAA regulations regarding the reporting of modifications prevented FAA staff from reviewing these modifications. As a result, another opportunity for possibly preventing this accident was lost."

As anyone who has studied aviation safety knows, most incidents are caused by a large chain of events - remove any single event from that chain, and the incident never happens. That's something we can all learn from. Give us the facts, show us the chain of failures that lead to the accident.

[AirRaceFan]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

Both of theose things are common occurrences with many of the top level planes. The way this is written portrays those things as huge red flags. They are not. This demonstrates a lack of knowledge on air racing.

Precise and succinct. I 100% agree.

[al baby]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

Precise and succinct. I 100% agree.

Yes, they are giant red flags. And, yes others have seen these types of problems and did something about it.

Do you think that Czech Mate is going through all that trouble because they had extra money lying around?

I will just assume that neither of you are involved with air racing beyond sitting behind your computer or grabbing a few beers in the grandstands.

Trying to educate you isn't worth the time. You refuse to listen to facts and congratulate each other for being wrong.

[Red]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

Further, I will also readily agree that ANY aircraft suffering from double control reversal (in pitch and roll) has no place on the race course.

If GG was suffering from control reversal at race speeds, then mea culpa.

Control reversal? Wow no. Try severely out of trim and possibly miss rigged. You know, the things you find when you TEST fly.

[AAFO_WSagar]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

Yes, they are giant red flags. And, yes others have seen these types of problems and did something about it.

Do you think that Czech Mate is going through all that trouble because they had extra money lying around?

<---snip--->

Trying to educate you isn't worth the time. You refuse to listen to facts and congratulate each other for being wrong.

Wait a minute, slow down here. Fair to mention that Czech Mate was unaware of their problem until a photo showed them that they had it....

I'm really not liking the direction of the mood of this thread, please remember that a lot of folks emotions are still a bit raw. I believe that the blog article in question here is out of line and biased, an "editorial" if you will...

King, would you mind pointing me to the portion of the NTSB where they mention the stick in the right corner thing?

[al baby]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

Let's be clear here folks, evaluation of aviation failures (irrespective of cause) is a nature of the beast.

Short and sweet version, Jimmy made mistakes and as a result he and many others were victims. FACT

Every Blue Angels demo is followed up with a detailed analysis of every aspect of the performance. ANY mistake, regardless of how minor, is identified, scrutinized, probed and reviewed to determine if it was a system or a personal failure. Regardless, the pilot owns the error in front of all present.

Similarly, every USN carrier trap is graded against a strict set of criteria. The results are posted openly for all to see and it is an unbiased, no holds barred review irrespective of whether the pilot is the Skipper, CAG or a nugget.

There is NO reason why a similar standard of accountability should not be applied to this occurrence. Doing so will only lead to safer races that will not be at risk of Big Brother shut down.

/out

[King]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

Disclosure: I have not followed the GG story with intense scrutiny over the past year. I saw the aftermath on the live web stream last year, I've read the NTSB report, and I've checked in with this forum from time to time to see what's going on, but I have not read every last post and comment.

With that said: this is the first time I have read that GG was so ill handling that it took forward/right stick input to make GG roll left and turn.

Further, I will also readily agree that ANY aircraft suffering from double control reversal (in pitch and roll) has no place on the race course.

If GG was suffering from control reversal at race speeds, then mea culpa.

Not control reversal, the airplane was WAY outa trim due to certain modifications performed.

This would have been dealt with in a controlled test program. That is what NTSB was saying between the lines.

[King]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

Wait a minute, slow down here. Fair to mention that Czech Mate was unaware of their problem until a photo showed them that they had it....

I'm really not liking the direction of the mood of this thread, please remember that a lot of folks emotions are still a bit raw. I believe that the blog article in question here is out of line and biased, an "editorial" if you will...

King, would you mind pointing me to the portion of the NTSB where they mention the stick in the right corner thing?

It is there if someone wants to go back and read through every page.

That is why when the upset happened, Jimmy went down to the floor and probably blocked the stick in this basic position, hence the roll back to the right......also in the NTSB report.