Who Is Responsible?

wingnut · 3 September 2008, 07:38 PM

I am very sad to hear of this terrible news at the aerodrome of this accident. My prayers go out to him and his family. Now, I am not trying to be a wise guy or anything similar to that. The definition of an accident is: an event occurring by chance or from unknown causes. This pilot had alot of experience. But in what type of aircraft? As I understand it and I might be wrong, it was in high powered aircraft. Transitioning from different types of aircraft is very tricky and takes time. It can not be rushed. Now , who is responsible for this very tragic accident? Is it the person who checked him out to fly this aircraft? Is it the Board of Trustees, who traded WW1 engines for this aircraft? It was well known long before this trade occurred, that this aircraft was tail heavy and flew like a dog. An event occurring by chance or unknown causes. How many similar type of pilots crashed these very different flying machines at the Aerodrome. The Standard, Nep 11, Camel, Stampe, and now this very tragic accident with the Nep 24. So, I ask myself, who is responsible? And all of the other mentioned accidents? The person who checked the pilot out to fly this plane? The airshow director who approved this plane and pilot to fly in the airshow? The Board, for approving the trade for this aircraft with full knowledge of the problems relating to the airplane? Or, that person in N.Z. who wanted to get rid of the problem airplane and trade it for some authentic WW1 engines for his benefit? In my opinion, all of them are responsible. They all are. Again, my prayers go out to him and his family. Sleep tight.

air male · 6 September 2008, 11:33 PM

My thought is the Air Shows director and the bot should share the lions share of the blame. Granted, every pilot is responsible for his decision to fly, but I say they took unfair advantage of Vinny's desire to keep the show going in the tradition of Cole Palen.

Actually, there has been very little of Cole's tradition since the takeover in 2003. History, documentation, and eye witnesses can attest to the fact that the Camel crash, the Nieuport 11 crash, and the Nieuport 24 crash would never have occurred under Cole's care. The 24, if all reports about its tail heaviness are true, would have either never been bought, or parked in the hangar on the hill. Vinny, no matter how nice and sincere he was, would have never flown the 24.

That brings up another point. The bots were probably not aware of the doggish handling characteristics of the Nieuport 24, or they wouldn't have taken it. My belief is that Gene DM saw a chance to unload that dog and get something of more value in exchange. He would have had no qualms about putting one over on the bot. Remember, he stored a stolen plane right on ORA property, under the nose of the then trustees. And if the bot did know, they apparently didn't care. I doubt that any of them have ever flown a plane that was tail heavy so, they would not understand the difficulties. That includes whoever the Air Shows director might be.

They have done many things, not understanding the consequences. Now that Vinny is gone and Bill Gordon is away, who is flying the rides plane? Do they have sufficient time in the machine. I personally have witnessed some harrowing landings and with passengers onboard.

Were I given an opportunity to vote on who is at fault, I would cast for the trustees and Air Shows director.

NexStar7 · 7 September 2008, 06:24 AM

I have been wondering about the tailheaviness that has been reported on that Nieuport 24. My question is - how tailheavy was that aircraft? I know that Cole used to fly the Triplanes with a bungee cord wrapped around the joystick to take the pressure off his arms trying to keep it flying level. Indeed, look at all those old photos of him in his Dr-1 and notice the amount of down elevator just to keep it in level flight! All airplanes have a tendency to climb in cruise flight at cruise airspeed, thats what elevator trim is for in modern a/c. And as most of us know, the early aeroplanes did not have any means of nose up/down trim. So, the question is : was the tailheaviness on the N-24 just the a/c's natural tendency OR was it embellished due to the a/c's center of gravity being located too far aft, out of the normal range envelope? I'm sure the FAA/NTSB has already thought of these questions and is part of the investigation.
As for who is responsible, my opinion is that responsibility ultimately falls to the pilot in command, just as FAR 91.3 clearly states!

air male · 7 September 2008, 09:25 AM

A plane is a plane as long as it flies. The tail heaviness isn't the real issue. And yes the pilot is the one who has to live or die with their decision.

The plain issue is who bears the responsibility for why Vinny died, for the events leading up to the moment he decided to make that fateful flight. Air show pilots put a high degree of trust in the people that take care of all the other work before the flight demonstrations. It is an area of huge responsibility. Most pilots never venture into that realm. Pilots have a huge level of confidence in their own skills and this is what many times leads up to not so good outcomes. It is the job of the management team to make sure that confidence level is matched with as much preparation as possible.

If that plane wasn't so difficult to fly, then why wasn't it being flown by the chief pilot, Jim Record or, any of the other pilots? Others had tried flying it and decided it wasn't for them. Was it coincidence that Bill Gordon wasn't at ORA that day? Bill is a phenomenal pilot and is keenly aware of pushing the envelope on ones skill levels. He survives his show routines. Isn't that what flying is about? Surviving? Of course. I imagine an aire of restraint when Bill is at ORA, just as there was when Cole ran the shows.

The current management at ORA does not provide an adequate envelope of survival. Here is an excerpt from the NTSB report, "...According to the qualification record, the pilot had completed 5 flights, for a total of 1.0 hours of training. According to the FAA inspector, the pilot had flown about 3 additional hours in the accident airplane since that time." (NTSB Identification: NYC08LA281) Only four hours of flight time. One hour in qualification. Were the other three hours done in showtime? If so, where was the time to get to know the plane? I wonder, how many times did Vinny get the opportunity to climb to a safe altitude and practice stalls and spin recoveries? The truth would be interesting.

Admittedly, I am on a limb in assuming the NTSB's final analysis will not conclude the crash was the result of a mechanical failure. It does happen, but I have a high degree of trust in Bill Gordon's mechanical skills and leadership with those who assist him caring for ORA's planes.

I am not numb, indifferent, detached, or unconcerned about Vinny's crash. Quite the opposite. I still think about his family and friends and feel for them, even though I never knew him or them. He was a part of the true ORA spirit, for which Cole would have had fondness for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nexstar7

I have been wondering about the tailheaviness that has been reported on that Nieuport 24. My question is - how tailheavy was that aircraft?

The difference in Cole's situation and Vinny's is the amount of time in their aircraft. Cole knew each and every plane intimately. He knew his pilots as well. He knew who could and would fly what.

Pilots who had flown the Nieuport 24 recounted how it would immediately nose up and start to stall when letting go of the stick. Obviously it flew, just not very well.

NexStar7 · 8 September 2008, 03:35 AM

That's the only real issue here. The tailheaviness is just one of many factors in that issue. If we all know that other pilots had flown that airplane and decided it wasn't for them... if it would immediately nose up into a stall when letting go of the stick - then how could it be that Mr. Nasta didn't know of these things?
If he had completed 4 hours in this a/c why didn't he feel it wasn't for him like the others? Did he feel it was just the way it normally flew -or - did he want to show up those other guys who didn't want anything to do with it? If he was so expierienced, he should have been able to tell if there was something not right with the airplane - like those other pilots. Did he have any time in other WW1 replica types to compare the N-24 with? Was he an old hand at WW1 a/c or was this one of his first times in one?
The current management wasn't standing there forcing him to make that flight. Maybe he knew of the reportedly poor handling qualities and decided to fly it anyway, pushing his luck one too many times. We all know airshow pilots push the envelope - look at all those airshow crashes on Youtube!!
Maybe the c.g was in the normal operating range and the tailheaviness was normal for that a/c, like any other a/c and was not a factor. The classic stall/spin accident still is the no.1 killer of airplanes & pilots, has been since Wilbur & Orville!!! This type of accident doesn't just claim Nieuport 24's you know. Just look at the "TOP GUN" who stalled/spun Coles warner powered Triplane - or - Fred Murrins stall/spin of his Camel a while back. The only thing that saved them was that the Camel didn't catch on fire, nor did the Triplane.
As Cole talks about in that video of the Aerodrome: He was always a little afraid when he flew. He always tried to leave some room for error. If you were going to do aerobatics close to the ground, you had better be GOOD because there was no room for any mistakes.
BRAVO - my own feelings exactly! A good pilot has to have the confidence in her/himself to go confidently into the sky and return still alive/healthy. Yet, you have to know where that edge of the envelope is and not go past it. Cole and his pilots were not "Airshow Pilots", they were WW1 aeroplane demonstration pilots, a BIG difference. The record of safety they all achieved over the years proves that.
In my opinion, the EGO of a true airshow pilot does not belong in the skies of Old Rhinebeck - they are two totally different types of flying - in my opinion!
A stall/spin from 300' agl is not a recipe for success, whatever the cause was. And we all know that the answer will be forthcoming from the FAA/NTSB. Currently it's all just questions and speculation on our part.
At this point in time, there is only one person who knows what really happened.

Oswald · 9 September 2008, 08:43 AM

I Think I am alittle to close to this issue to objectively comment on blame to be placed, but i wanted to make a quick clarification. Bill Gordon was present that day, and he was indeed flying the DR-1 During that act. Also, Vinny has flown as was checked out in other ORA collection WW1 aeroplanes, and was not in my opinion the kind of man who would let ego push him to do something unsafe. Lastly, he was one of three pilots at ORA who where checked out to fly the N-24, and none of those three pilots ever remarked to me that the N-24 flew poorly, stating the opposite. Just my two cents for now, thanks.

cfgray · 9 September 2008, 02:47 PM

Hello, Oswald,

I can understand why you would not want to disclose your true name here, actually I can think of more than one reason after a close reading of your posts. Your comments appear to place you in an inner circle of operations at Rhinebeck Aerodrome. So, since you've chosen to be here and to make posts, perhaps you'll take some questions.

1) Exactly who, what person, signed off on Aviator Nasta's series of touch-and-go's as his "one hour training" in the N.24?

2) What maintenance records were kept on the N.24?

3) When the N.24 arrived at Rhinebeck Aerodrome, was the Warner installed, or was the Warner put in after it's arrival?

4) Are you aware that the N.24 was repainted in New Zealand, in the marking of another N.24 which is still in N.Z.?

5) Was the N.24 given a complete inspection, inside and out, before it was put on flight status?

6) What person signed the May 2008 AWC for the N.24?

7) Were written flight test reports made during the N.24's check-out, prior to it being out on flight status? If so, where are those reports? Have they been sent to NTSB?

8) How much was the insurance value of the N.24 to ORAA? What was it insured against (what was the coverage)? Was this insurance policy arranged by James E. Kick?

So, please, Oswald, answer these questions. Nothing inflammatory here, just honest and direct questions... as someone to whom pilots flying the N.24 would have spoken their concerns, please, answer.

Best,
cfgray

US95Damiani · 10 September 2008, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cfgray

Hello, Oswald,

I can understand why you would not want to disclose your true name here, actually I can think of more than one reason after a close reading of your posts. Your comments appear to place you in an inner circle of operations at Rhinebeck Aerodrome. So, since you've chosen to be here and to make posts, perhaps you'll take some questions.

1) Exactly who, what person, signed off on Aviator Nasta's series of touch-and-go's as his "one hour training" in the N.24?

2) What maintenance records were kept on the N.24?

3) When the N.24 arrived at Rhinebeck Aerodrome, was the Warner installed, or was the Warner put in after it's arrival?

4) Are you aware that the N.24 was repainted in New Zealand, in the marking of another N.24 which is still in N.Z.?

5) Was the N.24 given a complete inspection, inside and out, before it was put on flight status?

6) What person signed the May 2008 AWC for the N.24?

7) Were written flight test reports made during the N.24's check-out, prior to it being out on flight status? If so, where are those reports? Have they been sent to NTSB?

8) How much was the insurance value of the N.24 to ORAA? What was it insured against (what was the coverage)? Was this insurance policy arranged by James E. Kick?

So, please, Oswald, answer these questions. Nothing inflammatory here, just honest and direct questions... as someone to whom pilots flying the N.24 would have spoken their concerns, please, answer.

Best,
cfgray

cfgray,

Insurance companies usually require signoffs, the FAA from a regulatory position does not. If you have a SEL rating with a Conventional gear signoff you are "legal" to fly anything fixed gear with a Conventional LG setup.

womenfly2 · 10 September 2008, 08:32 AM

Oswald my not be able to answer do to legal issues from this.

Just keep that in mind please.

WF2

Oswald · 6 October 2008, 01:09 PM

I just Want to be clear that I do not represent ORA's official stance on these issues, for legal reasons, and out of respect for my co-workers, but I will try to answer your questions best I can cfgray.
1. All check outs are preformed by the Airshow Director and Chief mechanic at their decision. There is a list of requirements that must be met for a checkout to happen, and for a pilot to pass one.
2. Maintenance Records for all Airshow planes airworthy or not are kept by the chief mechanic and are very comprehensive. They include the info on annuals, and every other instance of maintenance, short of filling up the gas tank.
3. I do not know.
4. I am not aware of that, and im not sure how it is important.
5. All planes must undergo a very through inspection before being declared airworthy for both safety and insurance reasons. after that they also undergo a comprehensive annual each season.
6. I am not positive, but the current Chief mechanic would be the only person authorized to sign that as far as I know.
7. written Flight reports are made during check outs to the best of my knowledge. They would be on record, and I am sure the FAA and NTSB saw them, based on their report.
8. I do not know the answer to any of these questions, sorry. I am also not sure how that pertains to the "responsibility" of the crash.

I did not witness Vinny’s checkout in the N-24, however all other checkouts I have witnessed included high altitude stall maneuvers and recovery maneuvers.
Hopefully I was helpful. If you have any other questions or followup questions please ask.