Cockpit video displays. Was: Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

[Jim Logajan]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> In article >,
> Mark Hickey > wrote:
>
>> Ernest Christley > wrote:
>>
>> >A flag on the part of the protagonist moves the responsibility from
>> >the antagonist seeing to the protagonist being seen (any time you
>> >move your vehicle, you're the antagonist, the mover, the doer, the
>> >responsible party). If the Avenger's co-pilot couldn't ride or walk
>> >a wing to the run-up area, stick a bug-eye mirror on a stick or out
>> >on a wing (temporarily). The solutions are simple, abundant, and in
>> >use all around us every day.
>>
>> With the price and availability of tiny little video cameras and LCD
>> displays, I can't imagine why anyone who could afford to fly a
>> warbird couldn't afford to put a forward-looking video system in
>> place (even if it's only a temporary installtion used for crowded
>> events). It would cost what - $100? - to prevent blind taxiing.
>>
>> Mark Hickey
>
> This "solution" requires too much "head buried in the cockpit" to be
> practical.

Dudley Henriques made the same objection when I suggested the same idea on
rec.aviation.piloting. The most significant problem with the objection is
that no one is proposing that the pilot stare at the screen - simply add an
occasional glance at the screen to the pilot's normal visual scan. Such a
device should be no more objectional than the rearview mirrors in an
automobile - devices that add more to safe driving than they detract.

> If the pilot is looking at the screen, he is not paying
> attention to other things of equal or greater importance happening
> around him.
>
> I like the idea of spotters better.

This solution requires too much "staring at the spotter" to be practical.
;-)

[Jerry Springer]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Mark Hickey > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ernest Christley > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>A flag on the part of the protagonist moves the responsibility from
>>>>the antagonist seeing to the protagonist being seen (any time you
>>>>move your vehicle, you're the antagonist, the mover, the doer, the
>>>>responsible party). If the Avenger's co-pilot couldn't ride or walk
>>>>a wing to the run-up area, stick a bug-eye mirror on a stick or out
>>>>on a wing (temporarily). The solutions are simple, abundant, and in
>>>>use all around us every day.
>>>
>>>With the price and availability of tiny little video cameras and LCD
>>>displays, I can't imagine why anyone who could afford to fly a
>>>warbird couldn't afford to put a forward-looking video system in
>>>place (even if it's only a temporary installtion used for crowded
>>>events). It would cost what - $100? - to prevent blind taxiing.
>>>
>>>Mark Hickey
>>
>>This "solution" requires too much "head buried in the cockpit" to be
>>practical.
>
>
> Dudley Henriques made the same objection when I suggested the same idea on
> rec.aviation.piloting. The most significant problem with the objection is
> that no one is proposing that the pilot stare at the screen - simply add an
> occasional glance at the screen to the pilot's normal visual scan. Such a
> device should be no more objectional than the rearview mirrors in an
> automobile - devices that add more to safe driving than they detract.
>
>
>>If the pilot is looking at the screen, he is not paying
>>attention to other things of equal or greater importance happening
>>around him.
>>
>>I like the idea of spotters better.
>
>
> This solution requires too much "staring at the spotter" to be practical.
> ;-)

Plus it is really fun to leave the canopy cover on and taxi around the
airport. :-)

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Dudley Henriques made the same objection when I suggested the same idea on
> rec.aviation.piloting. The most significant problem with the objection is
> that no one is proposing that the pilot stare at the screen - simply add
> an
> occasional glance at the screen to the pilot's normal visual scan. Such a
> device should be no more objectional than the rearview mirrors in an
> automobile - devices that add more to safe driving than they detract.

One more objection to the objection is :-)

At first glance, you might think that what you are proposing is safe and
workable, but it isn't in my opinion, and for several reasons. First of all,
nothing, and I repeat NOTHING, can take the place of a basic eyeball scan
OUTSIDE the cockpit when taxiing an aircraft in the WW2 tailwheel fighter
category. The entire concept of ground safety when taxiing these airplanes
is based on the simple premise that "if you can't clear or haven't cleared
the path in front of the nose for the linear distance the airplane will
travel before you can clear it again, YOU STOP THE AIRPLANE! This is a
cardinal rule when taxiing these airplanes and for very good reason. If you
hit something while taxiing a tailwheel prop fighter because you didn't see
it, you have taxied the airplane in conditions that are in direct violation
of this cardinal safety rule.
Now, as for your TV screen on the panel; it's no good for several reasons.
First of all, even if simply included in your taxi scan, it takes the scan
inside the cockpit then outside again which is bad, since a great deal of
the visual cues involved in taxiing these airplanes are based on a visual
cue received during a horizontal movement of the nose projecting a safe path
for a projected FUTURE TIME LINE, and not where the nose is pointed NOW!.
Secondly, any screen small enough to be placed in a fighter panel would not
be projecting an image in life size, and that alone brings an additional
mental calculation into the futures equation as to exactly how far ahead of
the airplane any viewed image in the screen might be.
Tools are wonderful, and in many instances that can be of great help, but
when it comes to taxiing a tailwheel fighter plane or a tailwheel torpedo
bomber, there is absolutely nothing that can replace the rule, "if you
haven't cleared it with your eyes, it hasn't been cleared"
Dudley Henriques

[Don Tuite]

I agree that video's the wrong technology. Would an audible proximity
warning like they have for backing up big pickup trucks help?

Don.

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:58:00 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
>"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Dudley Henriques made the same objection when I suggested the same idea on
>> rec.aviation.piloting. The most significant problem with the objection is
>> that no one is proposing that the pilot stare at the screen - simply add
>> an
>> occasional glance at the screen to the pilot's normal visual scan. Such a
>> device should be no more objectional than the rearview mirrors in an
>> automobile - devices that add more to safe driving than they detract.
>
>One more objection to the objection is :-)
>
>At first glance, you might think that what you are proposing is safe and
>workable, but it isn't in my opinion, and for several reasons. First of all,
>nothing, and I repeat NOTHING, can take the place of a basic eyeball scan
>OUTSIDE the cockpit when taxiing an aircraft in the WW2 tailwheel fighter
>category. The entire concept of ground safety when taxiing these airplanes
>is based on the simple premise that "if you can't clear or haven't cleared
>the path in front of the nose for the linear distance the airplane will
>travel before you can clear it again, YOU STOP THE AIRPLANE! This is a
>cardinal rule when taxiing these airplanes and for very good reason. If you
>hit something while taxiing a tailwheel prop fighter because you didn't see
>it, you have taxied the airplane in conditions that are in direct violation
>of this cardinal safety rule.
>Now, as for your TV screen on the panel; it's no good for several reasons.
>First of all, even if simply included in your taxi scan, it takes the scan
>inside the cockpit then outside again which is bad, since a great deal of
>the visual cues involved in taxiing these airplanes are based on a visual
>cue received during a horizontal movement of the nose projecting a safe path
>for a projected FUTURE TIME LINE, and not where the nose is pointed NOW!.
>Secondly, any screen small enough to be placed in a fighter panel would not
>be projecting an image in life size, and that alone brings an additional
>mental calculation into the futures equation as to exactly how far ahead of
>the airplane any viewed image in the screen might be.
>Tools are wonderful, and in many instances that can be of great help, but
>when it comes to taxiing a tailwheel fighter plane or a tailwheel torpedo
>bomber, there is absolutely nothing that can replace the rule, "if you
>haven't cleared it with your eyes, it hasn't been cleared"
>Dudley Henriques
>

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 20:36:36 GMT, Don Tuite
> > wrote:
>
>>I agree that video's the wrong technology. Would an audible proximity
>>warning like they have for backing up big pickup trucks help?
>
> Sure. Just make sure that it's louder than an idling Merlin engine,
> cause those are easy to miss.

There was a time when among my ground crew I was affectionately known as
"Captain WHAT."
(To my wife simply as "Baron Von Leftover :-)
If someone had forgotten to tell me something after I had fired up the
Mustang, they would climb up the side of the airplane, stand on wing and
lean in to the cockpit shouting whatever it was they wanted to tell me.
My answer invariably, even at idle, was to turn around, help them hold
whatever was in their hand and shout, "WHAT!!!"
:-))
Dudley Henriques

[Mark Hickey]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Dudley Henriques made the same objection when I suggested the same idea on
>> rec.aviation.piloting. The most significant problem with the objection is
>> that no one is proposing that the pilot stare at the screen - simply add
>> an
>> occasional glance at the screen to the pilot's normal visual scan. Such a
>> device should be no more objectional than the rearview mirrors in an
>> automobile - devices that add more to safe driving than they detract.
>
>One more objection to the objection is :-)
>
>At first glance, you might think that what you are proposing is safe and
>workable, but it isn't in my opinion, and for several reasons. First of all,
>nothing, and I repeat NOTHING, can take the place of a basic eyeball scan
>OUTSIDE the cockpit when taxiing an aircraft in the WW2 tailwheel fighter
>category. The entire concept of ground safety when taxiing these airplanes
>is based on the simple premise that "if you can't clear or haven't cleared
>the path in front of the nose for the linear distance the airplane will
>travel before you can clear it again, YOU STOP THE AIRPLANE! This is a
>cardinal rule when taxiing these airplanes and for very good reason.
<snip>

I suspect you're picturing the pilot staring continually at the video
screen while taxiing... that's not at all what I'd imagine.

Obviously most of your visual input is going to come from direct
observation "around the nose" of the aircraft - if someone's taxiing
in from the right, you want to see them before they're directly in
front of you. But if you're keeping your eyes open, there's no reason
to suspect that something's going to just appear in front of your
airplane unspotted - so there's no reason to spend a huge amount of
time fixated on the "straight ahead video view" - you'd use that like
you would a rear-view mirror. It sure beats stopping the airplane
every time you lose track of what might be directly ahead of you,
IMHO.

Mark Hickey

[Bob Moore]

Mark Hickey wrote
> I suspect you're picturing the pilot staring continually at the video
> screen while taxiing... that's not at all what I'd imagine.

Doesn't sound as if Dudley has spent much time driving an automobile
with an in-dash GPS. :-)

Bob Moore

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> Mark Hickey wrote
>> I suspect you're picturing the pilot staring continually at the video
>> screen while taxiing... that's not at all what I'd imagine.
>
> Doesn't sound as if Dudley has spent much time driving an automobile
> with an in-dash GPS. :-)
>
> Bob Moore

Nope, not much I'm afraid; but on the other hand, a bit more than a few
hours in tailwheel fighter planes if that counts for anything :-)

DH

[Mark Hickey]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
>> Mark Hickey wrote
>>> I suspect you're picturing the pilot staring continually at the video
>>> screen while taxiing... that's not at all what I'd imagine.
>>
>> Doesn't sound as if Dudley has spent much time driving an automobile
>> with an in-dash GPS. :-)
>
>Nope, not much I'm afraid; but on the other hand, a bit more than a few
>hours in tailwheel fighter planes if that counts for anything :-)

Heh heh heh... if you want to see what's (unadvisedly...) possible,
watch the morons driving down busy highways watching dashboard-mounted
video screens, texting with their cell phone, or my personal favorite,
reading. Makes taxiing a warbird seem safe in comparison. ;-)

Mark Hickey

[Peter Dohm]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
> . 121...
> > Mark Hickey wrote
> >> I suspect you're picturing the pilot staring continually at the video
> >> screen while taxiing... that's not at all what I'd imagine.
> >
> > Doesn't sound as if Dudley has spent much time driving an automobile
> > with an in-dash GPS. :-)
> >
> > Bob Moore
>
> Nope, not much I'm afraid; but on the other hand, a bit more than a few
> hours in tailwheel fighter planes if that counts for anything :-)
>
> DH
>
>
Being something of a tech guy, I'm a long time fan of cocpit video displays
for some purposes. I've even come around to the idea that they may be good
for some of the promary instruments--for instance there's a lot of really
informative stuff to overlay with an HSI...

However, Dudley has me convinced on this one. Swinging the nose from side
to side and watching outside is most probably the only way, unless all
traces of authenticity are abandonned and the panel is completely
modernized.

At the risk of seeming callous, this appears to be a really uncommon type of
accident and we really could take the position that "stuff happens." It is
a really scary way to meet one's demise; but everyone will be alert to the
hazard for several years, and, even if we do nothing at all, there will not
be a wave of similar accidents.

OTOH, It could be usefull to know who's on your six, andCessna 150s had rear
view mirrors as do most modern fighters. Pictures I've seen of WWII
fighters suggest that a lot of P51Ds and P38s may have had them in service
as well. The 150s had the mirror at glareshield level, while the fighters
all had/have their mirrors mounted as high as practical.

Peter
Sweltering in four layers of Nomex :-)

[Ernest Christley]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Now, as for your TV screen on the panel; it's no good for several reasons.
> First of all, even if simply included in your taxi scan, it takes the scan
> inside the cockpit then outside again which is bad, since a great deal of
> the visual cues involved in taxiing these airplanes are based on a visual
> cue received during a horizontal movement of the nose projecting a safe path
> for a projected FUTURE TIME LINE, and not where the nose is pointed NOW!.
> Secondly, any screen small enough to be placed in a fighter panel would not
> be projecting an image in life size, and that alone brings an additional
> mental calculation into the futures equation as to exactly how far ahead of
> the airplane any viewed image in the screen might be.

If you're using the screen to judge how far you can move, you're using
it wrong.

Those big round mirrors on the front corners of 18-wheelers. Drivers
don't use 'em to back into a parking space at a crowded truck stop.
They only tell you if there is ANYTHING at your side. If you see
anything in the big ball, you don't move until you can eyeball it. You
don't waste time trying to identify or mentally place it in relation to
yourself. You just stop any motion toward it.

Same with a video screen. It should have a fish-eye camera, and it's
only a warning system. The Avenger pilot didn't know the RV was there.
I guarantee you he would have hit the brakes and not moved if he
suspected what we now know. The fish-eye camera won't tell you how far
away the other guy is, but it let's you know he's there.

Yes there is delay in the notification from wingwalkers. But, good god
people, how fast were they taxiing in those crowded conditions. All you
need is something to say, "Danger. Danger, Will Robinson." Once the
presence of a danger is indicated, prudent people will stop and
investigate. That is all that's necessary to keep pilots from taxiing
onto one another.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 18:20:02 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
k.net...
>>
>> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
>> . 121...
>> > Mark Hickey wrote
>> >> I suspect you're picturing the pilot staring continually at the video
>> >> screen while taxiing... that's not at all what I'd imagine.
>> >
>> > Doesn't sound as if Dudley has spent much time driving an automobile
>> > with an in-dash GPS. :-)
>> >
>> > Bob Moore
>>
>> Nope, not much I'm afraid; but on the other hand, a bit more than a few
>> hours in tailwheel fighter planes if that counts for anything :-)
>>
>> DH
>>
>>
>Being something of a tech guy, I'm a long time fan of cocpit video displays
>for some purposes. I've even come around to the idea that they may be good
>for some of the promary instruments--for instance there's a lot of really
>informative stuff to overlay with an HSI...
>
>However, Dudley has me convinced on this one. Swinging the nose from side
>to side and watching outside is most probably the only way, unless all
>traces of authenticity are abandonned and the panel is completely
>modernized.
>
>At the risk of seeming callous, this appears to be a really uncommon type of
>accident and we really could take the position that "stuff happens." It is
>a really scary way to meet one's demise; but everyone will be alert to the
>hazard for several years, and, even if we do nothing at all, there will not
>be a wave of similar accidents.
>
>OTOH, It could be usefull to know who's on your six, andCessna 150s had rear
>view mirrors as do most modern fighters. Pictures I've seen of WWII
>fighters suggest that a lot of P51Ds and P38s may have had them in service
>as well. The 150s had the mirror at glareshield level, while the fighters
>all had/have their mirrors mounted as high as practical.
>
>Peter
>Sweltering in four layers of Nomex :-)

FWIW, I've seen another TBM (at Arlington / KAWO) *almost* do the same
thing (taxi into the airplane in front of him). By the time the pilot
realized why everyone was waving their arms / yelling & screaming it
was nearly too late (he locked the brakes and skidded a short distance
on the taxiway and the tail swung to one side).

If anything, this Oshkosh incident has taught me not to get in a big
line of aircraft with a large (warbird, whatever) taildragger behind
me. I'd opt for waiting like the Lancair pilot did (mentioned in the
NTSB prelim).

Bela P. Havasreti

[Peter Dohm]

"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 18:20:02 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >>
> >> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
> >> . 121...
> >> > Mark Hickey wrote
> >> >> I suspect you're picturing the pilot staring continually at the
video
> >> >> screen while taxiing... that's not at all what I'd imagine.
> >> >
> >> > Doesn't sound as if Dudley has spent much time driving an automobile
> >> > with an in-dash GPS. :-)
> >> >
> >> > Bob Moore
> >>
> >> Nope, not much I'm afraid; but on the other hand, a bit more than a few
> >> hours in tailwheel fighter planes if that counts for anything :-)
> >>
> >> DH
> >>
> >>
> >Being something of a tech guy, I'm a long time fan of cocpit video
displays
> >for some purposes. I've even come around to the idea that they may be
good
> >for some of the promary instruments--for instance there's a lot of really
> >informative stuff to overlay with an HSI...
> >
> >However, Dudley has me convinced on this one. Swinging the nose from
side
> >to side and watching outside is most probably the only way, unless all
> >traces of authenticity are abandonned and the panel is completely
> >modernized.
> >
> >At the risk of seeming callous, this appears to be a really uncommon type
of
> >accident and we really could take the position that "stuff happens." It
is
> >a really scary way to meet one's demise; but everyone will be alert to
the
> >hazard for several years, and, even if we do nothing at all, there will
not
> >be a wave of similar accidents.
> >
> >OTOH, It could be usefull to know who's on your six, andCessna 150s had
rear
> >view mirrors as do most modern fighters. Pictures I've seen of WWII
> >fighters suggest that a lot of P51Ds and P38s may have had them in
service
> >as well. The 150s had the mirror at glareshield level, while the
fighters
> >all had/have their mirrors mounted as high as practical.
> >
> >Peter
> >Sweltering in four layers of Nomex :-)
>
> FWIW, I've seen another TBM (at Arlington / KAWO) *almost* do the same
> thing (taxi into the airplane in front of him). By the time the pilot
> realized why everyone was waving their arms / yelling & screaming it
> was nearly too late (he locked the brakes and skidded a short distance
> on the taxiway and the tail swung to one side).
>
> If anything, this Oshkosh incident has taught me not to get in a big
> line of aircraft with a large (warbird, whatever) taildragger behind
> me. I'd opt for waiting like the Lancair pilot did (mentioned in the
> NTSB prelim).
>
> Bela P. Havasreti
>
>
The truth is that I've been thinking exactly the same thing--especially
since reading the prelim--and have been advocating the same to my fellow
chapter members.

I am fairly certain that one of the greatest fears of the big warbird pilots
is the possiblity of taxiing into something, and I really doubt that any are
regecting any solution that they really think will help. Nevertheless,
accidents occasionally happen. I have a video of a Fury taxiing straight
into a parked car (fortunately unoccupied) and, if I could recall where I
got it I would post the link.

The mirror idea, whether fixed or removable, is just to provide a possible
"ace in the hole" to possibly notice a changing situation on your six.

Peter

[Jim Logajan]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> I am fairly certain that one of the greatest fears of the big warbird
> pilots is the possiblity of taxiing into something, and I really doubt
> that any are regecting any solution that they really think will help.
> Nevertheless, accidents occasionally happen. I have a video of a Fury
> taxiing straight into a parked car (fortunately unoccupied) and, if I
> could recall where I got it I would post the link.
>
> The mirror idea, whether fixed or removable, is just to provide a
> possible "ace in the hole" to possibly notice a changing situation on
> your six.

Just FYI, the article "Taxi Smack" which is here:

http://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/sample/taxi.html

has some interesting statistics on taxi accidents. Here's a quote from that
article concerning the kind of accident that happened between the TBM
Avenger and the RV-6:

"The next most common kinds of taxi accidents, with nearly 15 percent of
the total, were collisions between two airplanes. Many involved tailwheel
airplanes in which the pilot did not have enough room to make the required
S-turns or where the pilot was looking out one side when the other side
struck another airplane.
[...]
Another common situation is an airplane approaching a crowded runup area
and either striking a waiting airplane while trying to taxi past it or not
stopping in time and striking the empennage of the waiting airplane with a
prop or wingtip."

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:19:25 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 18:20:02 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
>> >> . 121...
>> >> > Mark Hickey wrote
>> >> >> I suspect you're picturing the pilot staring continually at the
>video
>> >> >> screen while taxiing... that's not at all what I'd imagine.
>> >> >
>> >> > Doesn't sound as if Dudley has spent much time driving an automobile
>> >> > with an in-dash GPS. :-)
>> >> >
>> >> > Bob Moore
>> >>
>> >> Nope, not much I'm afraid; but on the other hand, a bit more than a few
>> >> hours in tailwheel fighter planes if that counts for anything :-)
>> >>
>> >> DH
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Being something of a tech guy, I'm a long time fan of cocpit video
>displays
>> >for some purposes. I've even come around to the idea that they may be
>good
>> >for some of the promary instruments--for instance there's a lot of really
>> >informative stuff to overlay with an HSI...
>> >
>> >However, Dudley has me convinced on this one. Swinging the nose from
>side
>> >to side and watching outside is most probably the only way, unless all
>> >traces of authenticity are abandonned and the panel is completely
>> >modernized.
>> >
>> >At the risk of seeming callous, this appears to be a really uncommon type
>of
>> >accident and we really could take the position that "stuff happens." It
>is
>> >a really scary way to meet one's demise; but everyone will be alert to
>the
>> >hazard for several years, and, even if we do nothing at all, there will
>not
>> >be a wave of similar accidents.
>> >
>> >OTOH, It could be usefull to know who's on your six, andCessna 150s had
>rear
>> >view mirrors as do most modern fighters. Pictures I've seen of WWII
>> >fighters suggest that a lot of P51Ds and P38s may have had them in
>service
>> >as well. The 150s had the mirror at glareshield level, while the
>fighters
>> >all had/have their mirrors mounted as high as practical.
>> >
>> >Peter
>> >Sweltering in four layers of Nomex :-)
>>
>> FWIW, I've seen another TBM (at Arlington / KAWO) *almost* do the same
>> thing (taxi into the airplane in front of him). By the time the pilot
>> realized why everyone was waving their arms / yelling & screaming it
>> was nearly too late (he locked the brakes and skidded a short distance
>> on the taxiway and the tail swung to one side).
>>
>> If anything, this Oshkosh incident has taught me not to get in a big
>> line of aircraft with a large (warbird, whatever) taildragger behind
>> me. I'd opt for waiting like the Lancair pilot did (mentioned in the
>> NTSB prelim).
>>
>> Bela P. Havasreti
>>
>>
>The truth is that I've been thinking exactly the same thing--especially
>since reading the prelim--and have been advocating the same to my fellow
>chapter members.
>
>I am fairly certain that one of the greatest fears of the big warbird pilots
>is the possiblity of taxiing into something, and I really doubt that any are
>regecting any solution that they really think will help. Nevertheless,
>accidents occasionally happen. I have a video of a Fury taxiing straight
>into a parked car (fortunately unoccupied) and, if I could recall where I
>got it I would post the link.
>
>The mirror idea, whether fixed or removable, is just to provide a possible
>"ace in the hole" to possibly notice a changing situation on your six.
>
>Peter
>

Here's a video clip of an North American NA-50 / P-64 replica (based
on a T-6 airframe) taxiing into a parked car. Someone posted on
usenet awhile ago the particulars of what happened, and as I recall,
someone in charge at the military base (where the air show was taking
place) made the warbirds taxi down a skinny taxiway that didn't have
enough room for S-turns. The military guy in charge reportedly parked
his staff car in the way of the airplanes and the result is viewable
here:

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-5-22-Airplane_crashes_into_car.mpg

As I recall, the military (Navy?) paid for the engine tear-down /
inspection + repairs to the P-64 replica.

Bela P. Havasreti

[Randy Aldous]

I think another reason why one would want to avoid the video option
and/or stay away from anything that would allow the S-turns to be
avoided (however foolishly) is the fact that an aircraft, or any large,
slow moving vehicle, for that matter, is a lot harder to detect when
coming straight at you. S-turns, no matter how small (leaving the
pilot's visibility factor alone for a moment,) will make you much more
visible to those in front.

I can say from experience, that this happens. In a former life, I did
electronics and communications at a large race track (which would, in
several ways, fit in the same noisiness and distraction class as a busy
flightline) - some of the bigger events had 50-60 thousand spectators
and the biggest, about 100K.

It never failed to amaze me how invisible a 1-ton,
bright-utility-company-orange diesel bucket truck can be to pedestrians
(even the sober ones). I have actually stopped dead because someone
walking towards me just kept coming. A couple have actually bumped into
the front of the truck before noticing. While I typically didn't S-turn
the truck, I could see that I was noticed much more when I was
approaching the people from an angle.

Just my 0.00002 AMUs.

Randy

[Mark Hickey]

"Randy Aldous" > wrote:

>I think another reason why one would want to avoid the video option
>and/or stay away from anything that would allow the S-turns to be
>avoided (however foolishly) is the fact that an aircraft, or any large,
>slow moving vehicle, for that matter, is a lot harder to detect when
>coming straight at you. S-turns, no matter how small (leaving the
>pilot's visibility factor alone for a moment,) will make you much more
>visible to those in front.

I dunno... seems to me that any pilot who has the ability to miss
seeing and/or hearing a warbird coming at them would probably have
already taken himself out of the gene pool. ;-)

Mark "the ground shakes and the sky darkens" Hickey