WWI Replica Safety

[j ferguson]

I think we ought to keep these stories here where we know each other.

In 1976 +/- I was living in Chicago and learned of a sailplane operation at West Bend WI, a bit northwest of Milwaukee. A friend and I flew up in the 120 and met Gunther Voltz who ran a very informal weekend gliding club where you got air-tows, and could fly a 1-34, 1-26's and whatever the Schweitzer lower performance 2 seater was. He had a Schleicher 2 seater - wood and fabric and very nice. Did I want a ride? I sat in front and he drove and talked me through what was going on as we were towed aloft by a Decathalon. we zeroed the altimeter at field elevation. Lift in that area usually gave up at 3,000 ft above ground. He showed me some maneuvers, exercised the spoilers, and explained the instruments peculiar to gliders and then said that this was going to be an especially educational demonstration since it looked like we couldn't make it back to the field.

He asked me to suggest a place to put it down. The area west of West Bend where we were is full of swamps but there were some nice grass fields. I suggested one. "No good. Think and suggest another." I thought and suggested another. "Also no good, We need to be near a road so trailer to retrieve plane can get at us, also a phone, and maybe dessert."
We landed in a short grass area (lawn) immediately adjacent to a road, and rolled up to a picnic table where a farm family was just finishing dinner. They had a phone and we had dessert.

He told me on car ride back that he wasn't always this sharp, but in his youth he'd been a factory pilot for Messerschmitt whose job was to ferry planes that "needed work" but were flyable back to repair depots. He gradually picked up the idea that there was often a choice in where to put it, and some were better than others.

I hope he's still alive, if so, he may be soaring at Black Forest in Colorado.

[Joe Perkel]

Originally Posted by SCMc

Hi Joe Perkel,

I hope that you don't think I was trying to limit the topic here to WWI aviation. It does not bother me if the topic wanders a bit. I just wanted to reassure j ferguson that we were interested in his experiences, and that the Aerodrome does have a place for non-WWI topics, since he was concerned with being off topic.

Steve

Steve,

That wasn't directed at anyone specific, I simply sensed some possible hesitation on the part of the membership.

I read somewhere once that in these forums some 80 to 90 % of intended communication is lost to the reader due to lack of voice inflection, and or body language. This is why I attempt to vary the type and spacing in my posts to signify a change in subject and or inflection. Comma placement, still gives me trouble all these years after school!

Hesitancy and safety.

It's reasonable to assume that this is a sensitive subject matter (safety), for pilots. Some prefer to write it off as too rare to be overly concerned with such matters.

As a result, some may be hesitant to post relevant personal experiences for fear of having their butt handed to them in flames! (Insert laugh here).

One thing that I believe to have contributed to this forum, is showing by example a lack of the above fear, and how that can hopefully translate to relevant and productive discussions.

Until I can start building, I have no better use for my time.

[Joe Perkel]

When their pride and joy is finished and its ready to fly do you have the skills to fly it?? I know that every one will wont to be the first one to fly their aeroplane but hand on heart can you say that you are able?
If all goes well its one thing, but what if theres a problem, can you cope?

This statement is supported in the reports quite frequently by the contributing factor,.. "lack of time in type."

Also, is where you are planing to fly it from suitable?? it may be your local field but is id ideal for that first flight??? one narrow runway out of wind is not a good choice, big field with lots of choice is ideal but i know that is not always available

This one would appear to be supported in the same reports by the statement,.. "Loss of directional control, departed runway to the left."


Remedy


1) Substitute test pilot

2) Relocation of aircraft to appropriate venue for test flight, or Bingo to alternate if conditions change after take off at single runway field.

3) Appropriate dual in similar configuration (conventional gear biplane).


Excellent contributions guys!

[Joe Perkel]

Originally Posted by j ferguson

He gradually picked up the idea that there was often a choice in where to put it, and some were better than others.

John,

Did you mean that to read,..that there is "always a choice?"

I think Hank's comment about what to hit and how is an appropriate discussion in itself...

1) Trees?

2) Water?

3) Rocky Terrain?

4) High crops?

5) Housing developments?

6) Wires,..(Egags!)

[j ferguson]

Originally Posted by Joe Perkel

John,

Did you mean that to read,..that there is "always a choice?"

There sometimes is no choice. Recognizing this may help you concentrate on flying your way down. So I'll stick with Gunther on this.

[Flysafe]

This is a very worthy thread on this forum. Having been flying long enough tobe labelled an "old fart", I have seen and done many things that I would not choose to do again, both in and out of airplanes. I also know that the more I learn the more I am acutely aware of how much I still have to learn.

Some further thoughts for consideration......

The safety chain in WWI replica aircraft presents many unique challenges.

The aircraft in many cases are "one of", or built from a set of plans that are modified byt the builder for a variety of reasons. The quality of construction is dependent on the skills of the builder and choice of materials. The net result is, unlike a factory built aircraft, we have a wide variety in both the engineering quality of the design and the quality of the construction.

Next we come to the regulatory authorities that inspect and license the aircraft. Again a wide variety of standards, knowledge and inspector skill levels becomes a factor in the safety chain.

Add to this a wide variety of pilot skills operating aircraft that have less than ideal handling characteristics. The lack of "dual" aircraft and in most cases limited knowledge on aircraft flight testing creates a further set of risks.

Finally we have the issue of ongoing maintenance which can be a huge challenge. As "one of" aircraft, or even the fact that the total number of aircraft of any one type from one set of plans in the world is few and the communication between builders on in-service difficulty is limited and unlike production aircraft we do not have a structured service difficulty bulletin process. The collective wisdom of keeping these aircraft maintained is difficult to disseminate and what applies to one aircraft may be completely useless for another - even of the same type, with same engine, built to the same plans.

One way to improve safety is through forums such as this and sharing lessons learned. The challenge is to understand which part of the safety chain the lesson learned fits into, design, building, flying or maintenance and what are effective risk management tools to identify, trap and mitigate any errors.

I have a 20+ year association with WWI replicas and I cannot begin to count the flying challenges or maintenance issues that have appeared, even in a particular aircraft I have flown for over 20 years.

The key is to not let your guard down at any time and when in doubt stay on the ground and don't fly until you have clearly understood the problem and rectified it.

[Flysafe]

Flying WWI aircraft in displays is a whole other risk management exercise. Having done so for 20+ years and worked with knowledgeable people to develop display routines I can assure you that this is the highest risk type of flying we do.

So what are some points to consider when displaying WWI aircraft:

First the fundamental principles:

1. Safety first, when in doubt don't depart, land or don't try the maneuver.
2. The majority of your audience are thrilled just to see the aircraft in the air and you are not a member of the Red Arrows so fly within the limits of your aircraft performance and flying ability.
3. Respect weather limits for wind and ceiling/vis and when in doubt modify the routine or don't fly.
4. Respect the crowd safety lines. Injuring yourself is one thing, but hurting a member of the audience is a disaster.

Now to making a safe display:

1. Develop a structured display routine from takeoff to touchdown. The routine needs to be written down and should have diagrams.
2. Define separation (vertical/lateral) rules for aircraft in the routine for collision avoidance.
3. Develop a display that is within the aircraft and pilot capabilities for each aircraft/pilot combination.
4. Simpler is always better.
5. Keep the action in front of the crowd and not too low.
6. Do not fly too close in formation it increases risk of collision and makes it harder for the crowd to see the aircraft.
7. Have a series of backup plans for the routines if one or more of the aircraft is unserviceable.
8. Practice the routine several before flying in front of a crowd for the first time and during the display season. Start at higher altitudes and work down and make the lowest altitude flown 300 ft.
9. Run a site-specific flight briefing with all pilots prior to each display.
10. Review emergency procedures for events during departure the dispaly and recovery.
11. Carry out a thorough pre-flight inspection, especially if the lublic has been around toucing the aircaft. You wouldbe amazed at what they can do.
12. Make sure you use good checklis discipline.
13. Check engine health carefully prior to flight.

These are just the basics and each display is a unique event that requires a good team lead that can work with all the pilots to identify site-specific and day-of-flight risks.

[Joe Perkel]

Originally Posted by j ferguson

There sometimes is no choice. Recognizing this may help you concentrate on flying your way down. So I'll stick with Gunther on this.

John,

To clarify what I meant, is that you are always going to come down.

Assuming the airframe is still under control, staying calm and establishing glide speed is the agreed procedure. It's that choice of where to go at the last minute that may be problematic. This, and distraction from flying the plane if troubleshooting say,..the engine.

1) Given the choice of say, 100' tall closely packed trees and closely packed houses, which do you chose? Shear the wings between some houses, or take your chances in the trees?

2) You set up a glide for a road, not a bit of speed to spare over rocky terrain, now heres a set of wires you didn't see,..pop up and risk a stall, hit it straight on, or try to duck under? I don't like this one.

3) Isolated body of water below 50 deg F, or slightly rolling but rocky hilly terrain? I'm lucky not to have this problem in Florida.

4) Densely populated city streets,...or busy Interstate highway?

Stuff like this is food for thought, something to have a least thought about if not discussed for your particular areas of flight.

[Joe Perkel]

Flysafe

Both posts are incredibly valuable to the point of saving them in a special file.

The aircraft in many cases are "one of", or built from a set of plans that are modified byt the builder for a variety of reasons. The quality of construction is dependent on the skills of the builder and choice of materials

I was strugling with this initially, and have decided not to modify, trusting in the previous engineering and apparent longevity of my chosen design. Last Babies in use by the Norwegians as late as 1930.

Add to this a wide variety of pilot skills operating aircraft that have less than ideal handling characteristics. The lack of "dual" aircraft and in most cases limited knowledge on aircraft flight testing creates a further set of risks.

This one continues to "bother" me, and is why I took Hank's lead in starting this particular thread.

Finally we have the issue of ongoing maintenance which can be a huge challenge.

Can't be overstated.

The key is to not let your guard down at any time and when in doubt stay on the ground and don't fly until you have clearly understood the problem and rectified it.

The NTSB guys like to call this contributing factor,....

"Pilot continued flight with known aircraft defeciency."

One way to improve safety is through forums such as this and sharing lessons learned.

Excellent, thank you Flysafe!

[Machinbird]

A number of years ago I was looking at a Navy accident cause analysis from the mid-1950's that concluded 70% of the then current accidents could have been prevented by different pilot actions, i.e. caused by the nut behind the stick. My examination of various safety studies since then has shown that the 70% pilot preventable accidents factor has remained fairly constant throughout the years and across a broad spectrum of flying activity, not just Naval aviation. Since pilot factors are the largest cause of accidents, it would appear that this is also the area that deserves the greatest emphasis in prevention and mitigation.

Mitigation? you ask. Yes, decreasing the severity of the consequences of "potential accidents." To err is to be human. If you have an accident, heaven forbid, and you walk away from it and have to rebuild your machine, it is a far better outcome than having your plane become your funeral pyre. If you are flying formation with an inexperienced pilot and he makes a mistake that embarrasses both of you, the outcome is better if you both have an optional handle to pull to activate a BRS type parachute system installed in your aircraft. If you lose directional control and turn over in a ditch, it is better if there is structure to prevent your head from being pushed into your chest, or perhaps being bent the other way.

Some time ago, we had a discussion regarding survivability and structural cockpit strength. Survivability lesson from the past If you build it like they did then, you can expect to get similar results.

If we are building an aircraft, we have opportunities to change things. With all the knowledge and technology to improve survivability that has been developed since WWI, it is almost criminal not to make use of it. You don't have to destroy the weight budget to do this. Just analyze the hazards and come up with effective means of mitigating them.
What do you think?
Sid