Originally Posted by Len Todd

After running our first West MI Jet Rally, several other plane events and emceeing MI Jets as well as working as a MI Jets Flight Line crew member, and as a relative newbie, I am wondering what I am missing here? It seems to me that:

No matter what plane you fly and radio you use, etc. there is a risk of catastrophic failure. The consequence of this risk is drastically reduced by never allowing the energy of the aircraft to be directed toward persons attending and running the event. Maybe some of you recall this from our Turbine Pilot's Operational Rules? I have watched Lewis fly the Hawk, and he is one of the better pilots to consistently practice this requirement.

The Turbine Pilot is supposed to ensure all the Operational Rules are followed, not just particular ones. The effective flight-line crew also ensures that all pilots follow the rules (e.g. do not allow the energy of the plane be directed toward people.) If organizers and their flight line crew can not ensure that the rules are being met, what are they doing trying to run the show or allowing a show to go on at a site where this can not be effectively achieved?

That being said, other than the pilot who is losing the investment, who cares if a plane disintegrates and/or crashes. For us, it is apparently an acceptable risk or we would not fly. Different people have different risk tolerance. So, .. some us fly riskier planes, at riskier speeds, into riskier maneuvers, etc. etc. As unfortunate as it is for the pilot's pocketbook, a crash makes for a good spectator show. Everybody remembers the crashes! But, if the event organizers are allowing the energy of any plane to be directed at the people on-site, they need to be looking at themselves or the site versus banning specific planes or radios, ... because sooner or later all brands will have a crash. From an event perspective, follow the rules and who cares which plane crashes or not?

However, I do agree with forcing implementation of newer technology once it has proven to effectively and significantly reduce significant risks. I think the move to 2.4 Mhz from 72 Mhz was good. I think using DSMX versus DSM is good for high density events. But trashing the older or newer unproven technology because a particular event prefers to avoid or minimize certain risks at certain events seems to go over the line.

If we do not field test new technology, the current technology will never advance. Without field testing new technology (e.g. honeycombed components, DSMX, telemetry, etc., etc.) the components made available to us will never get better and/or become less challenging. Without the challenge the aspect of the hobby, the hobby may even die. For me trying new tech is fun. W/o new tech to try, the challenge of flying jets seem somewhat boring. And,.. companies that provide new technology take risks. Sometimes the risks do not payoff. Sometimes the consequences spell demise for an unresponsive company. But, they may just figure as long as we keep buying the riskier stuff, why should they change?

In summary: I do not agree with banning a manufacturer's product. I do feel that effectively implementing our Operational Rules and using a flightline crew as a second level of defense to ensure the Operational Rules are being effectively followed reduces the involved risks to an acceptable level. I do agree with grounding a particular pilot who does not practice safe flying techniques (i.e. at a minimum IAW with the Operational Rules.)

Just my thoughts, as I mulled this banning issue over for application at our next Jet Rally.