T-34 crash

Another T-34 crashed today here in Houston killing the IP and
student.Was from the company that has air combat and upset training.

Eye witness heard a report and saw a wing that had separated. They had
a similar accident (wing separation) just a year ago that killed the
owner of Company.

Not sure if this bird had the FAA wing mod or not.

My condolences to the families of the pilots.

Big John

I hate to sound negative, but two fatal crashes in a year or so..
involving the same company.. and the same scenario (aircraft, mode of
operation). I will be surprised if Texas Air Aces resumes operations.

What I would be REALLY surprised to hear is if the SECOND fatal was a
result of 1) an unmodified (in accordance with the AD) bird or 2) being
operated outside of its envelope.

Condolences are clearly in order.. but so are some very probing questions.

Dave

Big John wrote:
Another T-34 crashed today here in Houston killing the IP and
student.Was from the company that has air combat and upset training.

Eye witness heard a report and saw a wing that had separated. They had
a similar accident (wing separation) just a year ago that killed the
owner of Company.

Not sure if this bird had the FAA wing mod or not.

My condolences to the families of the pilots.

Big John

The second bird had the Baron spar. It didn't help. If you
consistently pull back hard and roll, NOTHING will help.

Houston FSDO is investigating. Unfortunately, the only person at the
Houston FSDO who knew anything about aerobatics (and would have been
competent to investigate) quit in disgust months ago, so don't expect
much.

It is interesting to note that EVERY T-34 spar failure without
exception has been at one of these weekend warrior outfits - not a
single one in private hands has ever had a problem, including one
18,000 hour T-34 that is used for airshows by the owner.

Michael

Michael ) wrote:

It is interesting to note that EVERY T-34 spar failure without
exception has been at one of these weekend warrior outfits - not a
single one in private hands has ever had a problem, including one
18,000 hour T-34 that is used for airshows by the owner.

Didn't this company also teach unusual attitude and spin recovery? I
was looking to take this type of course with a similar group, but now I
am beginning to have second thoughts.

--
Peter

Didn't this company also teach unusual attitude and spin recovery?

Sure. They will teach you anything you want - just as long as you pay
for plane and instructor. But you don't really need a T-34 fitted with
cameras for that.

I was looking to take this type of course with a similar group, but
now I
am beginning to have second thoughts.

Unusual attitude and spin recovery is a great idea, and I recommend it
highly. Just don't do it in airplanes that are routinely overstressed
by these weekend warrior antics, and it will be fine. I can think of
at least two places in Houston you can go for that kind of training,
and one of them has very well maintained planes and is taught by a
retired aerobatic competitor (in this case retired does NOT mean that
she no longer flies or instructs).

Given that you fly a Bonanza, the best thing for you would be to find
someone who does this sort of training in an aerobatic F-33. I
remember there used to be someone at IWS (West Houston) who did that,
but that's as much detail as I remember.

Michael

Michael ) wrote:

Given that you fly a Bonanza, the best thing for you would be to find
someone who does this sort of training in an aerobatic F-33.

I didn't know there was such an aircraft. I'll ask ABS whether they
have any good recommendations. Thanks.

--
Peter

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
The second bird had the Baron spar. It didn't help. If you
consistently pull back hard and roll, NOTHING will help.

Houston FSDO is investigating. Unfortunately, the only person at the
Houston FSDO who knew anything about aerobatics (and would have been
competent to investigate) quit in disgust months ago, so don't expect
much.

It is interesting to note that EVERY T-34 spar failure without
exception has been at one of these weekend warrior outfits - not a
single one in private hands has ever had a problem, including one
18,000 hour T-34 that is used for airshows by the owner.

Michael

I completely agree with this opinion.

The T34 was a problem before the modifications, and will remain a
problem after the mods as long as it remains in the hands of these
fighter pilot wannabe schools.
The issue is well known in the air show safety community. The problem is
nose low rolling pullouts. The T34 is extremely clean and if handled
well is a fine aerobatic airplane. I used one before the spar mod and
had no problems with it.
The instructors flying these fantasy flights are mostly well qualified
pilots. The issue is the entry into the cockpits of the business
equation. Instead of a normal instructor/student scenario on these
flights, you have a "customer" up front and a pilot in back who has a
vested interest in seeing that the "customer" gets maximum bang for his
buck. This is NOT a good situation as the customer begins
"experimenting" with ACM on another airplane in 3 dimensional space
flying an airplane that is as slippery as an eel nose low. Invariably,
these "customers" will end up going deep nose low on the right side of
the envelope as they attempt to get that little "extra" needed for a
tracking solution on the camera sight.
The "instructors" on these fantasy flights are unfortunately always
fighting the same decision; how far to let the "customer" go into a nose
low rolling pullout before taking over the airplane. It's a fairly well
known factor of this type of work that the "customers" DON'T LIKE IT
when you take the airplane away from them. It takes away from the
psychological high they take away from the experience.
It's a two sided coin, and all the pilots who engage in the fantasy
business are aware of it. Most handle it well, and manage to keep the
"customer" out of trouble while at the same time not being obvious about
how they are doing this. Trust me.....this is an ART FORM!! :-)
The use of the T34 for these flights was a bad choice in the beginning
and in my opinion will remain a bad choice. Because the airplane is so
slippery nose low, the error margins relating to over g in a rolling
pullout are just too narrow for this type of work, and the business
equation being present in the rear cockpit can be deadly in this
airplane.
Just my opinion.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for email; take out the trash

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
k.net...

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
The second bird had the Baron spar. It didn't help. If you
consistently pull back hard and roll, NOTHING will help.

Houston FSDO is investigating. Unfortunately, the only person at the
Houston FSDO who knew anything about aerobatics (and would have been
competent to investigate) quit in disgust months ago, so don't expect
much.

It is interesting to note that EVERY T-34 spar failure without
exception has been at one of these weekend warrior outfits - not a
single one in private hands has ever had a problem, including one
18,000 hour T-34 that is used for airshows by the owner.

Michael

I completely agree with this opinion.

The T34 was a problem before the modifications, and will remain a problem
after the mods as long as it remains in the hands of these fighter pilot
wannabe schools.
The issue is well known in the air show safety community. The problem is
nose low rolling pullouts. The T34 is extremely clean and if handled well
is a fine aerobatic airplane. I used one before the spar mod and had no
problems with it.
The instructors flying these fantasy flights are mostly well qualified
pilots. The issue is the entry into the cockpits of the business equation.
Instead of a normal instructor/student scenario on these flights, you have
a "customer" up front and a pilot in back who has a vested interest in
seeing that the "customer" gets maximum bang for his buck. This is NOT a
good situation as the customer begins "experimenting" with ACM on another
airplane in 3 dimensional space flying an airplane that is as slippery as
an eel nose low. Invariably, these "customers" will end up going deep nose
low on the right side of the envelope as they attempt to get that little
"extra" needed for a tracking solution on the camera sight.
The "instructors" on these fantasy flights are unfortunately always
fighting the same decision; how far to let the "customer" go into a nose
low rolling pullout before taking over the airplane. It's a fairly well
known factor of this type of work that the "customers" DON'T LIKE IT when
you take the airplane away from them. It takes away from the psychological
high they take away from the experience.
It's a two sided coin, and all the pilots who engage in the fantasy
business are aware of it. Most handle it well, and manage to keep the
"customer" out of trouble while at the same time not being obvious about
how they are doing this. Trust me.....this is an ART FORM!! :-)
The use of the T34 for these flights was a bad choice in the beginning and
in my opinion will remain a bad choice. Because the airplane is so
slippery nose low, the error margins relating to over g in a rolling
pullout are just too narrow for this type of work, and the business
equation being present in the rear cockpit can be deadly in this airplane.
Just my opinion.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for email; take out the trash



Well said! They should be using something more like a Stearman for these
flights.

Mike
MU-2

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:03:45 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:


"Michael" wrote in message
roups.com...
The second bird had the Baron spar. It didn't help. If you
consistently pull back hard and roll, NOTHING will help.

Houston FSDO is investigating. Unfortunately, the only person at the
Houston FSDO who knew anything about aerobatics (and would have been
competent to investigate) quit in disgust months ago, so don't expect
much.

It is interesting to note that EVERY T-34 spar failure without
exception has been at one of these weekend warrior outfits - not a
single one in private hands has ever had a problem, including one
18,000 hour T-34 that is used for airshows by the owner.

Michael

I completely agree with this opinion.

The T34 was a problem before the modifications, and will remain a
problem after the mods as long as it remains in the hands of these
fighter pilot wannabe schools.
The issue is well known in the air show safety community. The problem is
nose low rolling pullouts. The T34 is extremely clean and if handled
well is a fine aerobatic airplane. I used one before the spar mod and
had no problems with it.
The instructors flying these fantasy flights are mostly well qualified
pilots. The issue is the entry into the cockpits of the business
equation. Instead of a normal instructor/student scenario on these
flights, you have a "customer" up front and a pilot in back who has a
vested interest in seeing that the "customer" gets maximum bang for his
buck. This is NOT a good situation as the customer begins
"experimenting" with ACM on another airplane in 3 dimensional space
flying an airplane that is as slippery as an eel nose low. Invariably,
these "customers" will end up going deep nose low on the right side of
the envelope as they attempt to get that little "extra" needed for a
tracking solution on the camera sight.
The "instructors" on these fantasy flights are unfortunately always
fighting the same decision; how far to let the "customer" go into a nose
low rolling pullout before taking over the airplane. It's a fairly well
known factor of this type of work that the "customers" DON'T LIKE IT
when you take the airplane away from them. It takes away from the
psychological high they take away from the experience.
It's a two sided coin, and all the pilots who engage in the fantasy
business are aware of it. Most handle it well, and manage to keep the
"customer" out of trouble while at the same time not being obvious about
how they are doing this. Trust me.....this is an ART FORM!! :-)
The use of the T34 for these flights was a bad choice in the beginning
and in my opinion will remain a bad choice. Because the airplane is so
slippery nose low, the error margins relating to over g in a rolling
pullout are just too narrow for this type of work, and the business
equation being present in the rear cockpit can be deadly in this
airplane.
Just my opinion.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for email; take out the trash

They should use Stearmans. You could go straight down and pull/roll
as hard as you want! (tounge slightly pressing onto cheek....).

Bela P. Havasreti

The problem is the fantasy equation itself. Most of the "customers" who
are attracted to this venue carry a mental visualization of a low winged
monoplane in an enclosed cockpit scenario similar to that seen in the
war movies. The T34 unfortunately, more or less fits this visualization.
It's just unfortunate that the airplane allows so little error margin
when mishandled by the "customers". It's my opinion that these airplanes
could be flown safely by experienced aerobatic pilots AT THE CONTROLS!
But regardless of the experience in the back seat, if the equation
involves a business policy that predicates letting the ham handed guy up
front get beyond what verbal interaction from the back seat can correct
through that pair of ham hands up front within the airplane's error
margins, you have a formula for disaster!
These "instructors" are simply letting these guys go too far without
physical interaction trying to allow the maximum effect and feeling of
being pilot in command by the "customer" up front.
It's a BAD situation in the T34, and I fear more failures in the future
if someone doesn't wise the hell up to this situation.
Being able to fly extremely well is one thing, and most of the pilots
flying these flights as back seaters are VERY good pilots. But there's a
HUGE difference between being able to fly in an ACM environment by
yourself, and being able to stay ahead of an aircraft as slippery as the
34 using only verbal prompting with some ham handed Walter Mitty up
front living out his dream of glory!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for email; take out the trash



"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
k.net...

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
The second bird had the Baron spar. It didn't help. If you
consistently pull back hard and roll, NOTHING will help.

Houston FSDO is investigating. Unfortunately, the only person at
the
Houston FSDO who knew anything about aerobatics (and would have been
competent to investigate) quit in disgust months ago, so don't
expect
much.

It is interesting to note that EVERY T-34 spar failure without
exception has been at one of these weekend warrior outfits - not a
single one in private hands has ever had a problem, including one
18,000 hour T-34 that is used for airshows by the owner.

Michael

I completely agree with this opinion.

The T34 was a problem before the modifications, and will remain a
problem after the mods as long as it remains in the hands of these
fighter pilot wannabe schools.
The issue is well known in the air show safety community. The problem
is nose low rolling pullouts. The T34 is extremely clean and if
handled well is a fine aerobatic airplane. I used one before the spar
mod and had no problems with it.
The instructors flying these fantasy flights are mostly well
qualified pilots. The issue is the entry into the cockpits of the
business equation. Instead of a normal instructor/student scenario on
these flights, you have a "customer" up front and a pilot in back who
has a vested interest in seeing that the "customer" gets maximum bang
for his buck. This is NOT a good situation as the customer begins
"experimenting" with ACM on another airplane in 3 dimensional space
flying an airplane that is as slippery as an eel nose low.
Invariably, these "customers" will end up going deep nose low on the
right side of the envelope as they attempt to get that little "extra"
needed for a tracking solution on the camera sight.
The "instructors" on these fantasy flights are unfortunately always
fighting the same decision; how far to let the "customer" go into a
nose low rolling pullout before taking over the airplane. It's a
fairly well known factor of this type of work that the "customers"
DON'T LIKE IT when you take the airplane away from them. It takes
away from the psychological high they take away from the experience.
It's a two sided coin, and all the pilots who engage in the fantasy
business are aware of it. Most handle it well, and manage to keep the
"customer" out of trouble while at the same time not being obvious
about how they are doing this. Trust me.....this is an ART FORM!! :-)
The use of the T34 for these flights was a bad choice in the
beginning and in my opinion will remain a bad choice. Because the
airplane is so slippery nose low, the error margins relating to over
g in a rolling pullout are just too narrow for this type of work, and
the business equation being present in the rear cockpit can be deadly
in this airplane.
Just my opinion.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for email; take out the trash



Well said! They should be using something more like a Stearman for
these flights.

Mike
MU-2