Snowbirds down

"tony roberts" wrote in message news:nospam-50703B.18411310122004@shawnews...
Two Snowbirds collided today while training.
Link is he

http://www.canada.com/national/story...b-946b440d7045




That's a shame...These guys fly a great show...

Really a sad day....

These guys fly a 9 plane formation, STAYING TOGETHER IN A CHANGING
FORMATION for 13 minutes at the show opening. Because the Tudor can
fly lower and slower than the fighters, the show is "center stage" for
the audience.

Rather than speed & power, it is like a delicate ballet that can bring
tears to the eyes of veteran pilots, the ones who can appreciate the
extreme difficulty of what they are doing, and the stress of being on
the outside of a rolling NINE plane formation.....

They will continue on after this , just like all the teams must do.

Condolences to them & their families.

Dave


On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 02:55:59 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:


"tony roberts" wrote in message news:nospam-50703B.18411310122004@shawnews...
Two Snowbirds collided today while training.
Link is he

http://www.canada.com/national/story...b-946b440d7045




That's a shame...These guys fly a great show...

Dave wrote in
:

[ ... ]
They will continue on after this , just like all the teams must do.
[ ... ]
Dave

I hope you are right. The government has been trying to disband them for a
few years. There was enough public outcry last time that they backed off.
This morning's paper says that following the crash our defense minister is
already talking about shutting them down again.

Rob

"Rob McDonald" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote in
:

[ ... ]
They will continue on after this , just like all the teams must do.
[ ... ]
Dave

I hope you are right. The government has been trying to disband them for a
few years. There was enough public outcry last time that they backed off.
This morning's paper says that following the crash our defense minister is
already talking about shutting them down again.


The Minister's actual terminology was something like "will re-evaluate the
program". They have always been "grounded" following any accident, I
believe, until the investigation is done.

The Minister's remarks were in response to the usual probing by mindless
reporters bringing up the aging hardware, 10 million annual cost, and past
accidents (like 5 deaths since 1971, now doing 60 shows a year.). In the
chronology, the media even included a pilot killed in a car accident, just
to fatten it up (that would make 6).

The cost has always been a thorn for the Government, but I am hoping his
words were so the media would have something to take away, while at the same
time being code for "business as usual once the investigation is done".

The problem is that even some military grumble that this is not a *military*
unit, and they are right, it isn't. It is pure PR that the military happens
to fund and staff. But we have to believe that sane people in the
Government of Canada and their Military will realize that their 10 Mil is
buying a lot more REAL National PR pride... than that other PR project we
know so well:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ational/Canada
The 250 million that went into thin air could have funded them for the next
25 years.

Icebound wrote:
The Minister's remarks were in response to the usual probing by
mindless
reporters bringing up the aging hardware, 10 million annual cost, and
past
accidents (like 5 deaths since 1971, now doing 60 shows a year.). In
the
chronology, the media even included a pilot killed in a car accident,
just
to fatten it up (that would make 6).

Ignoring the car accident, we're looking at 5 fatal accidents over the
course of 33 years, with a team of what, 11 pilots in any given year?
That's less than 400 pilot-years, and 5 fatalities. So what we're
looking at is a flying activity where even the most experienced pilots
(1300 hours in military jets is the MINIMUM to be considered) have less
than a 99% chance of surviving any single year. By contrast, there are
around 600,000 pilots in the US, and less than 600 fatalities (not all
pilots) annually.

Looking at it from another perspective, 60 shows a year (less in the
past) and 9 airplanes (less in the past) is AT BEST still well under
100,000 total hours flown, including repositioning flights. The Nall
report shows an overall GA fatality rate of 1.33 per 100,000 hours.
These guys managed 5 in less than 100,000.

One has to wonder why, given no-expense-spared training and
maintenance, and using only the most capable and experienced pilots,
this demonstration team can't even match the depressing statistics of
GA as a whole. Now I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that safety
isn't the most important thing - not even as important as putting on a
good show for the crowd - but before you rush to the defense of the
Snowbirds saying it should be business as usual after the
investigation, be sure you're comfortable with that too, because the
numbers don't lie - they're not a safe operation by any reasonable
measure.

The problem is that even some military grumble that this is not a
*military*
unit, and they are right, it isn't.

I enjoy watching a good aerobatic demonstration as much as the next
guy, and I'm quite willing to pay for the privilege (and have) but as a
taxpayer I too would question whether millions of tax dollars should be
spent on an activity that is demonstrably dangerous and of no military
value. Plenty of aerobatic demonstration teams exist without taxpayer
support - why can't this one?

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
Icebound wrote:
The Minister's remarks were in response to the usual probing by
mindless
reporters bringing up the aging hardware, 10 million annual cost, and
past
accidents (like 5 deaths since 1971, now doing 60 shows a year.). In
the
chronology, the media even included a pilot killed in a car accident,
just
to fatten it up (that would make 6).

Ignoring the car accident, we're looking at 5 fatal accidents over the
course of 33 years, with a team of what, 11 pilots in any given year?
That's less than 400 pilot-years, and 5 fatalities. So what we're
looking at is a flying activity where even the most experienced pilots
(1300 hours in military jets is the MINIMUM to be considered) have less
than a 99% chance of surviving any single year. By contrast, there are
around 600,000 pilots in the US, and less than 600 fatalities (not all
pilots) annually.

Looking at it from another perspective, 60 shows a year (less in the
past) and 9 airplanes (less in the past)

Well, not that many less. Their average, inception to 1999, was 56 shows a
year. They have then had 90 in 2000 (their max), and something near 60 per
year since... I don't have all the exact numbers..

is AT BEST still well under
100,000 total hours flown, including repositioning flights. The Nall
report shows an overall GA fatality rate of 1.33 per 100,000 hours.
These guys managed 5 in less than 100,000.

One has to wonder why, given no-expense-spared training and
maintenance,

This is the Canadian military. There is no such thing as
"no-expense-spared", although there IS care, skill, dedication and
ingenuity.

and using only the most capable and experienced pilots,
this demonstration team can't even match the depressing statistics of
GA as a whole. Now I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that safety
isn't the most important thing - not even as important as putting on a
good show for the crowd - but before you rush to the defense of the
Snowbirds saying it should be business as usual after the
investigation, be sure you're comfortable with that too, because the
numbers don't lie - they're not a safe operation by any reasonable
measure.

I am pretty comfortable with it, as long as they are, hence I will wait for
the investigation. They know better than us whether the risk is acceptable
to them.


The problem is that even some military grumble that this is not a
*military*
unit, and they are right, it isn't.

I enjoy watching a good aerobatic demonstration as much as the next
guy, and I'm quite willing to pay for the privilege (and have) but as a
taxpayer I too would question whether millions of tax dollars should be
spent on an activity that is demonstrably dangerous and of no military
value.

Is that a criteria? Military value?

The Snowbirds safety record is certainly comparable to the Blue Angels. The
Blue Angels have had one training/show death for every 14 million
spectators, while the Snowbirds record is 1 for 20 million spectators.

Plenty of aerobatic demonstration teams exist without taxpayer
support - why can't this one?

Icebound wrote:
This is the Canadian military. There is no such thing as
"no-expense-spared", although there IS care, skill, dedication and
ingenuity.

There are also 10 full-time professional mechanics for 9 airplanes.
That sure sounds like "no-expense-spared" to me.

I am pretty comfortable with it, as long as they are

As am I. I fully support their right to accept whatever level of risk
is acceptable to them. Let's just not kid ourselves about what that
level of risk is - when the reporters point out how many accidents
there have been, these are not numbers taken out of context. The
accident rate is pretty bad - comparable to motorcycle racing, BASE
jumping, and similarly hazardous activities. The difference is, the
Canadian taxpayer isn't funding motorcycle racing or BASE jumping
teams.

Is that a criteria? Military value?

Sure. I guess I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that the proper
function of taxation is to pay for things in common that we can't
reasonably pay for individually and which are necessary for all, like
the common defense. I don't believe entertainment falls into that
category, much as I enjoy that particular form of entertainment.

The Snowbirds safety record is certainly comparable to the Blue
Angels. The
Blue Angels have had one training/show death for every 14 million
spectators, while the Snowbirds record is 1 for 20 million
spectators.

That's certainly an interesting way to asess safety. The implicit
assumption here is that it's OK to have more fatalities if you draw
sufficiently bigger crowds, as this will make your death/spectator
ratio lower. Not that I have a problem with that, mind you - I simply
want the assumption out in the open where it can be examined. It will
certainly make a less-popular but much safer act that only ever had ONE
fatality look a lot worse because the spectator numbers will be lower.

In any case, while the comparison with the Blue Angels is reasonable, I
certainly never meant to imply that the Snowbirds were less safe than
the Blues nor in any way inferior. I've seen both acts, and while
they're very different they're both great to watch. If it makes you
feel better, I don't like my tax money paying for the Blue Angels
either - though I will happily buy a ticket to a performance.

Michael

Icebound wrote:
The Minister's remarks were in response to the usual probing by
mindless
reporters bringing up the aging hardware, 10 million annual cost, and
past
accidents (like 5 deaths since 1971, now doing 60 shows a year.). In
the
chronology, the media even included a pilot killed in a car accident,
just
to fatten it up (that would make 6).

Ignoring the car accident, we're looking at 5 fatal accidents over the
course of 33 years, with a team of what, 11 pilots in any given year?
That's less than 400 pilot-years, and 5 fatalities. So what we're
looking at is a flying activity where even the most experienced pilots
(1300 hours in military jets is the MINIMUM to be considered) have less
than a 99% chance of surviving any single year. By contrast, there are
around 600,000 pilots in the US, and less than 600 fatalities (not all
pilots) annually.

Looking at it from another perspective, 60 shows a year (less in the
past) and 9 airplanes (less in the past) is AT BEST still well under
100,000 total hours flown, including repositioning flights. The Nall
report shows an overall GA fatality rate of 1.33 per 100,000 hours.
These guys managed 5 in less than 100,000.

One has to wonder why, given no-expense-spared training and
maintenance, and using only the most capable and experienced pilots,
this demonstration team can't even match the depressing statistics of
GA as a whole. Now I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that safety
isn't the most important thing - not even as important as putting on a
good show for the crowd - but before you rush to the defense of the
Snowbirds saying it should be business as usual after the
investigation, be sure you're comfortable with that too, because the
numbers don't lie - they're not a safe operation by any reasonable
measure.

The problem is that even some military grumble that this is not a
*military*
unit, and they are right, it isn't.

I enjoy watching a good aerobatic demonstration as much as the next
guy, and I'm quite willing to pay for the privilege (and have) but as a
taxpayer I too would question whether millions of tax dollars should be
spent on an activity that is demonstrably dangerous and of no military
value. Plenty of aerobatic demonstration teams exist without taxpayer
support - why can't this one?

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message

One has to wonder why, given no-expense-spared training and
maintenance, and using only the most capable and experienced pilots,
this demonstration team can't even match the depressing statistics of
GA as a whole.

Because it's a dangerous sport.

Now I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that safety
isn't the most important thing - not even as important as putting on a
good show for the crowd - but before you rush to the defense of the
Snowbirds saying it should be business as usual after the
investigation, be sure you're comfortable with that too, because the
numbers don't lie - they're not a safe operation by any reasonable
measure.

Compare it to motorcycle racing.

The problem is that even some military grumble that this is not a
*military* unit, and they are right, it isn't.

I enjoy watching a good aerobatic demonstration as much as the next
guy, and I'm quite willing to pay for the privilege (and have) but as a
taxpayer I too would question whether millions of tax dollars should be
spent on an activity that is demonstrably dangerous and of no military
value. Plenty of aerobatic demonstration teams exist without taxpayer
support - why can't this one?

Plenty of aerobatic teams that fly jest?

moo

In article ,
Dave wrote:
Really a sad day....

These guys fly a 9 plane formation, STAYING TOGETHER IN A CHANGING
FORMATION for 13 minutes at the show opening. Because the Tudor can
fly lower and slower than the fighters, the show is "center stage" for
the audience.

The Snowbirds and the Blue Angels were both at Salinas this year again.

The difference between the two teams is like night and day. The
Snowbirds are right in front of you the entire time. The Blue
Angels come by at high speed and then take three counties to turn
around and line up for their next pass. What the Blue Angels (and
Thunderbirds) do is amazing, but not no where near as interesting
as watching the Snowbirds fly.

With nine planes to work with, the Snowbirds can do some interesting
formations. They do one where they form a Canada Goose and another
where they a heavy bomber (two planes one each 'wing' with smoke on).

Some pictures from the Salinas Airshow are at:
http://www.panix.com/~jac/salinas2004/

John
--
John Clear - http://www.panix.com/~jac