Human factors RECKLESSNESS

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:21:07 -0700, NW_PILOT wrote:

Who were them 2 brothers that invented the airplane????? they were called
crazy ect. if they attempted what they did 200 years earlier they would
have
been hanged or beheaded. What about the people that got on boats to prove
the earth was round? And many others that you should thank.



There's a subtle difference between adventurous and pioneering, and
adventourous and reckless. What really confuses me is that you openly
admit, nay brag, about the fact you did it in a non-aerobatic aircraft.



--

'It is rumoured that his last words were, "Watch this..."'
Duke Elegant
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=117465

Dude, just because the maneuver isn't approved in the aircraft manual
doesn't me it isn't safe to do. The limiting factor is the skill of the
pilot. Stay within the G-limits, airspeed limits, the airplane doesn't
know what it's doing.
Robert A "Bob" Hoover was a military and civilian pilot that did things
with airplanes others said couldn't be done. He did them nonetheless,
repeatedly, in the same aircraft.

B S D Chapman wrote:
There's a subtle difference between adventurous and pioneering, and
adventourous and reckless. What really confuses me is that you openly
admit, nay brag, about the fact you did it in a non-aerobatic aircraft.

I've known Bob Hoover for over thirty years. He would be the second in line
(right behind me :-) to tell any pilot even thinking about attempting
aerobatics in an aircraft not approved for that purpose not to engage in
that endeavor.
Everything Bob does and has done in aerobatics with each and every aircraft
he has flown professionally for that purpose has required special waivers
from competent authority.
Please don't equate a non professional pilot performing aerobatics in a
Cessna 150 to Bob Hoover, or if you must do so, send this post along with
the initial post about this issue from the beginning of the thread to Bob
personally and tell him I told you to send it to him for his comment; then
post his response right back here on this newsgroup so that everyone can see
what he has to say about it.
Thank you
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)



"jsmith" wrote in message
...
Dude, just because the maneuver isn't approved in the aircraft manual
doesn't me it isn't safe to do. The limiting factor is the skill of the
pilot. Stay within the G-limits, airspeed limits, the airplane doesn't
know what it's doing.
Robert A "Bob" Hoover was a military and civilian pilot that did things
with airplanes others said couldn't be done. He did them nonetheless,
repeatedly, in the same aircraft.

B S D Chapman wrote:
There's a subtle difference between adventurous and pioneering, and
adventourous and reckless. What really confuses me is that you openly
admit, nay brag, about the fact you did it in a non-aerobatic aircraft.

Dudley, don't misunderstand me.
Hoover (an a limited number of others) are special circumstances.
Everything I have read stated that the Shrike was a stock airplane.
I don't recall that Hoover ever spins in the airplane.
The video of the roll while pouring a glass of water is sure a hoot, though!
As I said in my post, in the right hands, some maneuvers not approve by
the manufacturer can in fact be performed safely.

john smith wrote:
Dudley, don't misunderstand me.
Hoover (an a limited number of others) are special circumstances.
Everything I have read stated that the Shrike was a stock airplane.
I don't recall that Hoover ever spins in the airplane.
The video of the roll while pouring a glass of water is sure a hoot,
though!
As I said in my post, in the right hands, some maneuvers not approve by
the manufacturer can in fact be performed safely.

I believe that Bob also said at one airshow that he never stressed the
Shrike beyond its certification load limits. As someone said earlier,
it often isn't the aerobatic maneuver itself that stresses the airframe,
it is the botched maneuver or the recovery from a botched maneuver where
the extra strength is needed. Obviously, Mr. Hoover doesn't have to
worry about that. :-)


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
john smith wrote:
Dudley, don't misunderstand me.
Hoover (an a limited number of others) are special circumstances.
Everything I have read stated that the Shrike was a stock airplane.
I don't recall that Hoover ever spins in the airplane.
The video of the roll while pouring a glass of water is sure a hoot,
though!
As I said in my post, in the right hands, some maneuvers not approve by
the manufacturer can in fact be performed safely.

I believe that Bob also said at one airshow that he never stressed the
Shrike beyond its certification load limits. As someone said earlier,
it often isn't the aerobatic maneuver itself that stresses the airframe,
it is the botched maneuver or the recovery from a botched maneuver where
the extra strength is needed. Obviously, Mr. Hoover doesn't have to
worry about that. :-)


According to Liefeld, Hoover's Shrike had just two modifications other than
its smoke system. An hydraulic accumulator in the baggage compartment held
hydraulic pressure so Hoover could extend the gear when the airplane was
upside down and the engines feathered. It also provided Hoover with
nosewheel steering following his deadstick landing and rollout.

The second mod was an automatic unfeathering system. Hoover would shut down
the engines by pulling the prop controls to Feather position while leaving
the throttles and mixture controls in place. To restart, he would advance
the prop levers, tripping microswitches on electric pumps that unfeathered
the props so they would windmill and restart.


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Dudley Henriques wrote:

Everything Bob does and has done in aerobatics with each and every aircraft
he has flown professionally for that purpose has required special waivers
from competent authority.

And certainly an aircraft inspected more often than your average ragged
out trainer. I saw footage of a Hoover wannabe foldering up the wings
on a Partenavia during an airshow.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...
Dudley Henriques wrote:

Everything Bob does and has done in aerobatics with each and every
aircraft
he has flown professionally for that purpose has required special waivers
from competent authority.

And certainly an aircraft inspected more often than your average ragged
out trainer. I saw footage of a Hoover wannabe foldering up the wings
on a Partenavia during an airshow.

Yes; this type of thing is unfortunate. Hoover is very aware of it and
speaks to GA pilots quite often on safety issues. He's always been quite
candid and truthful; especially when discussing his own mistakes.
Copy-cat issues with aerobatic wannabes are quite prevalent in aviation
unfortunately. All of us in the demonstration community do our best to nip
it in the bud when we see it happening. This thread is a good example of
that. Hopefully, I'm well known enough that when I come down on something
like rolling a Cessna 150, pilots, including the 150 driver will listen to
me. It's important that well respected pilots like you and Margy speak out
as well..as you have here. God knows if any of us do any good when things
like this come up. Lord I hope so! I know through the years I've talked on
it many times in aerobatic lectures I've given, and pilots like Hoover talk
on still today.
Dudley

Dudley Henriques wrote:
"Ron Natalie" wrote...

Dudley Henriques wrote:


Everything Bob does and has done in aerobatics with each and every
aircraft
he has flown professionally for that purpose has required special waivers
from competent authority.

And certainly an aircraft inspected more often than your average ragged
out trainer. I saw footage of a Hoover wannabe foldering up the wings
on a Partenavia during an airshow.


Yes; this type of thing is unfortunate. Hoover is very aware of it and
speaks to GA pilots quite often on safety issues. He's always been quite
candid and truthful; especially when discussing his own mistakes.
Copy-cat issues with aerobatic wannabes are quite prevalent in aviation
unfortunately.

Not just aviation. I rock climb, and at the top of the rock climbing
pyramid are guys that climb thousand foot cliffs of astounding
difficulty, and do it solo without any ropes or other safety gear. Just
their skill.

And when asked about it, to a man they do the right thing and go on and
on, blah, blah, blah, about how they do it for themselves, and no one
else should do it, etc. And still people follow their lead and kill
themselves when they get over their head.

The soloists can do what they do because they have absolute mastery (as
much as one can be a master) of their skills and limitations. The
problem is, their logic of "I am a master, therefore I can solo" gets
turned around by wannabes into "If *I* solo climb, I too must be a
master." At which point natural selection occurs.

Everybody would like to have the skills of Mr. Hoover. More than a few
think they already do. Some will always die trying to prove it, to
themselves and others. So it'll be a constant battle.

"jsmith" wrote in message news:J1bce.941

Robert A "Bob" Hoover was a military and civilian pilot that did things
with airplanes others said couldn't be done.

Mr. Hoover, however, is credited by many of the best pilots in the history
of aviation to be the best pilot in the history of aviation.

Bob Hoover can do an 8-point roll, power-off, in a cargo plane, glide it
around the pattern and stop it on a dime. I, personally, would not attempt
to do that.

'Course, I've never flown a roll in an airplane, either. I know, I
know...it's a sad thing. One of these days....
-c