1

ZERO ERROR MARGINAirshow Display Flying Analysed

Des Barker

2

DEDICATION

This book is dedicated to the memory of all display aircrew and spectatorsthat have lost their lives in pursuit of their passion for display flying andairshows. Deepest sympathies to all affected, the pilot’s and spectator’s

families, their co-workers and friends, the public and the show organizers.There but for the Grace of God, go many display pilots.

3

FOREWORD

The key to understanding the focus of this book is the acceptance of a singular reality; display

flying, by virtue of the close proximity to the ground, poses a hazard to safety of flight.

I have been involved in display and demonstration flying, both as a member of the SouthAfrican Air Force’s Silver Falcons formation aerobatic team and enthusiastic spectator at manynational and international airshows over the past thirty years. I have very strong feelings on thesignificance of display flying safety since the number of airshow and display flying accidentsworldwide has seen a steady increase over the past ten years. Safety regulations have, in somecountries been blatantly disregarded, particularly at the smaller airshows, yet still there is nointernational body or regulatory authority that exercises oversight for compliance with a universallyaccepted set of regulations and standards.

This book is thus intended to provide not only food for thought, but also some guidelines forconsideration by those concerned with display flying in whatever capacity of involvement, whetheras display pilot, aircrew, airshow organiser, display safety officer or ‘anorak’. There is nothing newin this book; there is neither radical theories nor magic formulae that has been introduced to dealwith the fallibility of the display pilot in the low-level display environment. In fact, the theory andtechniques of aerobatics flying have been addressed at length over the years while books andPhD’s have been written on human factors and human error.

But no book has addressed or attempted, for whatever reason, to address the airshowaccidents, possibly for the possibility of casting a shadow on airshow safety. No common effortexists to capture airshow accident data to provide a basis for ‘lessons learnt’. No attempt hasbeen made to bring together the theory and dynamics of display flying with the real worldexperiences of airshow accidents. It is therefore hoped to encourage display pilots to bare theirsouls on their feelings, their experiences, their recommendations and last but not least, to speakup within their own airshow and display communities on their personal mistakes and ‘closeshaves’.

Chief of the South African Air Force,

4

The book is designed to be a work on display flying, utilising a statistical analysis of randomlyselected airshow accidents to highlight the traps involved while emphasising the hazards and thefact that there is zero error margin in the low-level display arena. This book has tried to capturethe experiences of some of the most experienced display and flight test demonstration pilots in theworld and presented as an overview of the techniques and key factors used by these specialistairshow performers in planning, practicing and flying their airshow routines. The sharedexperiences of specialists will hopefully stimulate thought in the field of display flying and therebyadd to the safety and professionalism of airshows worldwide.This book should assist airshow performers, operators and organizers alike to manage their wayaround some of the airshow anomalies while still providing the public with great aerialshowmanship yet, without compromising safety. The information is pertinent and factual. It’swritten in the no nonsense style and highly experienced perspective that a book like this requires.It is specifically aimed at not being too technical with regular interspacing of information with thepersonal inside slant that should add to the value of the book as a teaching tool.

Professional flight display crews are composed of highly trained individuals who have nodesire to make mistakes or errors of judgement. Yet mistakes do happen, even during the mostcarefully planned display sequences and such human mistakes can cause, and have caused,devastating accidents and also many “narrow escapes”. There is no place for a non-professionalpilot in this activity, the stakes are too high. In his “Fly Smart” video, Admiral Jack Ready (USN)summarises the essence of display flying: “When you begin flying the airshow for yourself, testingour own limits, showing off yourself and not concentrating on showing the airplane…you havestepped over the line into the realm of the non-professional air display pilot. The mark of theprofessional is the safe, well-placed, and smooth-flowing airshow performance”.

Display flying is without doubt, a potentially a high-risk task for a pilot. All display pilotshave an “Achilles Heel”, a weak spot in their armour, which is generally not advertised amongstpeers. The more we learn about ourselves and what others think about our displays and the morewe exchange views on ‘close shaves’, the better will be our chances of combining survival withfirst rate demonstrations.

PretoriaSeptember 2003

5

THE AUTHOR

Colonel Des Barker of the South African AirForce (SAAF), a fixed wing test pilot and previousCommanding Officer of the South African Air Force’sFlight Test Centre (TFDC), is a member of Society ofExperimental Test Pilots (SETP) and the RoyalAeronautical Society (RAeS). As an ex-member ofthe SAAF’s national aerobatic team, the SilverFalcons and a demonstration/display pilot on severaldifferent types of fast jets including the DassaultMirage F1 and the Mirage III (Cheetah - SAAFdesignation), he has thirty-three years of flyingexperience totalling approximately 6,500 flying hourson forty-five different military types, mostly fast-jets.

Published in the SAAF’s aviation safetymagazine NYALA , the Brazilian Air Force magazineFORCA AEREA, SETP's quarterly technical

publication COCKPIT , the South African National Defence Force magazine SALUT/South AfricanSoldier, African Armed Forces Journal and extensively in the South African general aviationmagazine, World Airnews, market research indicated that there was no quintessential book on thesubject of demonstration flying safety.

With this in mind it was decided that for such a work to have any credibility, aninternationally collaborative effort would provide the optimal course of action. A group ofreputable/credible and most importantly, highly experienced and enthusiastic aviation specialists,including Keith Hartley, BAE Eurofighter Typhoon test and demonstration pilot, Major GreggHolden USAF C-17 display pilot, Mr Trevor Ralston Denel Aviation rotary wing test pilot, KevinMace ex-RAF Lightning display pilot, the Society of Experimental Test Pilots in the USA andseveral veterans of the international airshow world were rounded up to form a team and contributeto this book.

6

CONTENTS

Foreword by Chief of the South African Air Force ........................................................ 3

The Author ....................................................................................................................5

Preface .........................................................................................................................7

Author’s Acknowledgements ........................................................................................9

Chapter 1 Realities of the Airshow World .............................................................11

Chapter 2 Overview of Airshow Accidents ........................................................... 64

Chapter 3 Airshow Accidents Database and Statistical Analysis ........................138

Chapter 4 Accident Case Studies .......................................................................173

Chapter 5 The Display Pilot .................................................................................203

Chapter 6 Display Flying Safety Dynamics .........................................................248

Chapter 7 Display Specifics ................................................................................304

Chapter 8 Flying the Display ...............................................................................345

7

PREFACE

The aim of this book is to address the dynamics of display and demonstration flying, inparticular, highlighting the display pilot’s physiological deficiencies and the factors affecting thesafe presentation of a display/demonstration flight. Research has indicated that there is no bookon the world market that addresses this subject from the perspective of the display pilot, in factfrom any perspective, except photographic. There are several books on airshows; there areseveral books on the techniques and methodologies of flying the specific aerobatic manoeuvres,but none that look exclusively at the hazards imposed by low-level display flying at airshows orflight test product demonstrations.

No one has yet analysed the scope and magnitude of the challenges facing display flying ina world in which statistical evidence indicates an increase in airshow accidents worldwide as thepopularity of airshows increases. Interventionist authorities have been established in certaincountries with the sole purpose of regulating airshows to maximize spectator and display pilotsafety. The disconcerting negative publicity attributable to each accident, the high costs ofairshow security post September 11 and man’s ever increasing demand for excitement andadrenalin, have placed huge financial and regulatory restrictions on one of the world’s mostpopular spectator pastimes.

This book is an internationally collaborative effort written by highly experienced pilots fordisplay and aspirant display pilots mainly, but non-display pilots, safety officers, airshoworganisers and aviation enthusiasts would certainly find it interesting reading and learning from thereal world examples and ‘case studies’. The ‘golden thread’ remains safety of flight within thedisplay-flying world. This is not an instructional textbook as such, it is not a mathematicalexposition of safety of flight factors or aerodynamics, but rather a non-technical ‘look’ at the realworld of display flying in all its various facets. The subjects addressed should stimulate thoughtand discussion on display and demonstration flying safety and if nothing else, should provide adisplay or aspirant display pilot with ‘warning flags’ to prevent accidents from repeatingthemselves.

Essentially, the question that is addressed is: “What is the scope and magnitude of thesafety problems within the realm of airshow safety and how have such problems impacted onairshow safety”. The problem is MAN, but unfortunately, there is no magic fix to solve theproblems and overcome man’s inherent physiological deficiencies. This book focuses on realworld experiences with contributions by several different veteran display pilots who have survivedthe airshow circuit providing the lessons learned. It is not necessary to reinvent the wheel, othershave gone before – learn from them.

By the very nature and high frequency and huge following of airshow events in the UK andUSA, the book tends to address case studies mainly in these countries. However, since theattempt has been to make this an internationally collaborative work encompassing display flying allover the world, the authors and the contributors are a varied spectrum of pilots that have flown atthe entire range of airshows from Farnborough International to local flying club ‘Fly-Ins’ and assuch, the experiences and case studies from several other countries have also been included.

The book provides an overview of airshow safety but at a high level only without gettinginto lower level technical detail that could lose the interest of the enthusiastic reader. The book ishistorical, technical and system safety related, the writing style has tried to be free flowing, nottextbook or flight manual style, written for pilots in ‘pilotese’ in many cases. It should provide easyreading but not be an instructional or aerodynamics manual even though the undercurrent is toteach and learn from other’s mistakes.

The book covers background information for a display or aspirant display pilot whethermilitary, civilian, professional aerobatic or flight test demonstration pilot to stimulate thoughts onimproving display safety and personal survival. The focus is on maximizing showmanship withoutcompromising, but rather improving safety by exposure to the mistakes previously made by thosethat have perished in pursuit of their display flying passion. The book brings together the theoryand philosophies of display flying by connecting with the real world examples of airshow accidentsand using the airshow accidents as a teaching tool in an effort to prevent such mistakes beingrepeated in the future.

8

The book offers thoughts on a number of issues, which directly and indirectly affectairshows, viz. the airshow as a business concern, the safety of airshow spectators and the generalpublic alike and the impact of airshow crashes on society in general. MAN, as the weak link in thesafety chain, is considered in terms of human error while airshow crash management, the role ofthe media, the anti-airshow lobby, regulatory authorities, the impact of increased insurance costsand the emotive issue of flying vintage aircraft at airshows is discussed.

The real world hazards of low-level display flying are presented not only through a briefreview of 118 airshow accidents, but also by means of a statistical analysis which exposes the roleof MAN as the weakest link in the safety chain and enables the integration of such accident datawith the theoretical dynamics involved helping to bring theory and real world practices together.Given the risks at airshows, the basic causational errors of display flying accidents and thesignificance of airshow safety from the organiser’s perspective enables definition of the airshowsafety problem.

The scope of the book covers amongst other things, the Real World of Airshows includingthe business case, media, human fallibility, anti-airshow lobby, the case for flying vintage aircraft,etc. Accident case studies also provide the platform from which to study the display pilot’s mind,decision making under high stress conditions and high pilot workload. In considering the displaypilot, the pilot workload while flying the display is addressed and consideration is given to factorsseducing the pilot psyche. Display pilot challenges are considered, questions are asked whyhighly experienced display pilots makes irrational decisions, how much continuation training andexperience is required, while the question of age and the life of a professional aerobatic pilot areconsidered.

No appraisal of display safety would be complete without considering the specific dynamicsand aerodynamics of low-level display flying. In particular the aspects of closing speed, pilotreaction times, the limitations of display volumes, energy management, pitot/statics, densityaltitude, ejection, manual bail-out and departures and spinning. A high level presentation ofdisplay flying dynamics and aerodynamics assists in placing in perspective the objectives of thedisplay pilot in optimising performance and handling qualities for the display routine.

In considering display specifics, subjects addressed are the selection of display pilots,planning considerations for specific show routines, manoeuvres and routine selection.Philosophies regarding practice, simulator preparation and discipline are essential considerationsin preparing a show routine and as such the flight envelope, carriage of passengers, fuelallowance and weather considerations are discussed. Flying the actual display is reviewedthrough the use of real world examples while the philosophies and ‘rules of thumb’ for flight testdemonstration flights are covered in terms of the role of management, Buyer’s team requirements,briefings and reporting.

Finally, an effort is made to put the reader ‘into the cockpit’ by exposing the emotions andparticular physiological stressors facing the display pilots flying on ‘show day’. The display pilot,the psyche of the pilot, effect of cockpit ergonomics, pilot workload, the safetydynamics/aerodynamics of display flying, airshow accident case studies, including the world'sworst airshow accident, causal factors relating to safety, displaying vintage jet and piston warbirds,the routine planning, choreography, safety factors, demonstrating the different categories ofaircraft from the C-17 through to the Eurofighter, flight test commercial demonstration flying, etc.and much more.

The primary aim of the book is to highlight the Man's contribution to airshow accidents(78%), weakness, challenges and exchange/pass on information and lessons learnt on theskills/art of demonstration flying in all its various contexts - hopefully stimulating a greateremphasis on safety of flight in the hazardous arena of low level aerobatics. The air show circuit iscurrently under threat following Sept 11, high insurance and security costs, high accident rates,etc.

In 2001, there were at least 15 air show accidents worldwide, in 2002 there were at least14 - hopefully, there will be no more in 2003. Airshows are big business the world over and everyaccident adds to the negative perceptions of the world's second most popular spectator pastime.If this publication could add to improving an understanding of the human factors involved andsafety of flight just 1%, it would be worth the effort.

9

The tenets expressed in this book are those of the author and contributors and donot necessarily represent any Company or Society.

AUTHOR’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

his book should be carefully read by anyone interested in display flying and airshows,either as a display pilot, an aspirant display pilot, an ex-display pilot, display safety officer, airshoworganiser or enthusiastic spectator. Compiling a book of this nature could not have been doneexclusively without the sharing of real world experiences and contributions by display veterans,show organisers and display safety officers. As such, a debt of gratitude is owed to those thatshared their vast experiences with the display and demonstration flying fraternity worldwide in aneffort to promote display flying safety – after all, “safety is free”.

The idea for this book was initially conceived by a team which included the author, ColonelDes Barker (SAAF), Mike Beachyhead (Thunder City, South Africa), Nigel Lamb (BreitlingCollection, Duxford) and Wing Commander Andy Offer (ex – Red Arrows leader). The followingcontributors are acknowledged in chronological order for their direct contributions:Airshow Magazine 2002 Editor, Mark Nicholls for kind permission to reproduce the RAF Harrierairshow sequence for 2002.Associated Press (AP) , for media extracts on airshow accidents.Aviation Safety (USA) magazine, for use of extracts from the research article on Spinning by PatVeillette “A Spinning Yarn” published in May 2002.Roger Beazley, Farnborough International, Chairman of the Flying Control Committee for sharingsome of his experiences and philosophies on the problems facing Display Committees.Peter Chaplin, SAAF Test Flight and Development Centre (TFDC), for proofreading the book.

Paul du Bois for information on South African airshow crashes.Dave Downs of Fountainville, PA, USA for his contribution on the inadvertent ejection seatactivation by a spectator.

Eurofighter Typhoon, photographs of Eurofighter by Geoffrey Lee.

European Airshow Council (EAC), for permission to reprint extracts from the EAC 2003Convention proceedings.Colonel Nattie Ferreira, Director Flying Safety SAAF for support and case studies of SAAF airshowaccidents.

Flypast Magazine March 2003 for statistics on UK Fatal Accidents of Historics.

Group Captain John Fynes, Commandant RAF Cranwell, for his contribution on the implications ofweather on display flying.

Keith Hartley, ex-BAE Systems, flight test and demonstration pilot for his contribution ondemonstrating the Eurofighter at Farnborough.Lt Col Rocky Heemstra, SAAF Flight Safety Officer, for proof reading the book and sharing hisexperiences and also providing material he had previously used in airshow safety briefings.Dudley Henriques, Chairman International Fighter Pilots Fellowship, for sharing wisdom derivedover many years on the airshow circuit.Key Publishing, Airshow 2000 Magazine, Editor Mark Nicholls for use of Harrier airshow sequencegraphics and text.Major Greg Holden, USAF C-17 Display Pilot for his contribution to displaying the C-17.Antoine Grondeau, Photographer and Paris University Student, for his European airshowphotographs tomcat@wingshots.net.Michel Legault, Air Adviser RCAF via RCAF DFS for case studies of RCAF airshow accidents.Kevin Mace, ex-RAF 11 Squadron Lighting Pilot, for his contribution in displaying the EnglishElectric Lightning at RAF Leuchars.

10

John Miller, SA Flyer Magazine, for the photograph of the Boeing 707 flypast.David Oliver, author British Military Aircraft Accidents – The Last Twenty-Five Years , forinformation on the RAF and Red Arrows accidents.Trevor Ralston, Denel Aviation, rotary wing test and demonstration pilot for his contribution todisplaying the Rooivalk attack helicopter at Farnborough International.RAF Benevolent Fund, for the use of an image of Royal International Air Tattoo RAF Cottesmore.Raymer, D., AIRCRAFT DESIGN: A Conceptual Approach , American Institute of Aeronautics andAstronautics, Washington, D.C., Third Edition 1999.Reuters , for media extracts on airshow accidents.Ricardo Traven, Boeing McDonnell Douglas, F-18 demonstration pilot for sharing his philosophieson display sequence and editing.Lt Col Vladimir Samek, Slovak Air Attaché London, for information on Slovak airshow accidents.Colonel Fatih Sert, Turkish Air Attaché London , for information provided on Turkish airshowaccidents.Arun Sharma for the use of his images and information of the Mirage 2000 crash at the Indian AirForce Day Parade 1989.Brian Snyder, Graphics Editor, Ventura County Star , California, for the Point Mugu Airshow QF-4Saccident graphic.The Society of Experimental Test Pilots (SETP), for permission to use extracts from COCKPITmagazine’s ‘Cobra in the Basket” and for permission to quote from comments by flightdemonstration test pilots included in past issues of COCKPIT magazine.

Robert Stetter for permission to use images of the Frecce Tricolori accident at Ramstein from(www.robert-stetter.de).Rick Stowell, USA, Master Instructor , for permission to use extracts from his article “Bailout! CouldYou, Would You Do It?” which was first published in Sport Aerobatics magazine, May 2001.Lt Col Neill Thomas, Officer Commanding SAAF Museum, for contributions on the SAAF Spitfireand Mustang P-51D accidents.Kobus Toerien Safety Manager, South African Airways, for sharing his philosophies on the displaypilot.Wing Commander Mike Whitehouse, ex-RAF Red Arrows Manager , for information regarding RAFairshow accidents.

Bob Gore, Tom Swalm and Chris Patterakis for formation aerobatics input.

UK, Aircraft Accident Investigation Board (AAIB), for the use of accident investigation boardreports.USA, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), for the use of accident investigation boardreports.Senior Colonel Zao Zhiqiang, Chinese Air Attaché London, for information on Chinese airshowaccidents.

To my wife Bennie, without her continuous encouragement, this book would never haveseen the light of day.

11

CHAPTER 1

REALITIES OF THE AIRSHOW WORLD

“Any pilot, given the task of providing a display for the public, should set out to thrill the ignorant,impress the knowledgeable, and frighten no one”. (Squadron Leader Ian Dick, former leader of

the Red Arrows)

THE AIRSHOW BUSINESSDisplay flying has not only become big business worldwide, but as in any theatre

production in London’s West End or on New York’s Broadway, it is also a major entertainment andspectator pastime. In the United Kingdom, particularly, it is interesting to note that airshows arerated as the second largest spectator sport after football and in the United States, such high-flyingevents are second only to Major League baseball as America’s favourite family event, even aheadof NASCAR auto racing. It is also one of the most hazardous and each year, aerobatic pilots arekilled while displaying their aircraft at airshows and commercial demonstrations.

From ‘Barnstormers’ to Blue Angels , antique aircraft to supersonic jets, each year there arean astonishing 300 to 350 airshows in America alone, entertaining over 24-million spectators.From futuristic festivals to billion-dollar expos, spectators are able to explore the world of amazingaerobatics and their ever-evolving aircraft and see how aviation technology has advancedairshows, and how airshows have advanced aviation. In the UK, a total of 165 airshows were held

Royal Air Force Red Arrows at the Salon de Provence AFB national airshow celebrating the50th anniversary of the Patrouille de France, 18 May 2003. (Antoine Grondeau)

12

during 2001, down from the average of 250, mainly attributable to the foot and mouth epidemicthat occurred in 2001.

The popularity of airshows is understandable because you don’t have to pay £35 a seat or£3.00 for a bottle of water at an airshow, it’s usually an affordable event and one gets to see some

of the world’s best pilots perform with grace and skill,sometimes with humour, and certainly with panache .Some of the pilots are wearing military medals, thekind that are only given to genuine heroes, others aresimply civilian aviators who sacrifice their time, talent,and money, just to keep the dream of flight alive.Unfortunately, unlike some professional athletes andpop stars, most airshow pilots don’t earn six figureincomes, even though they are a crucialentertainment component of the largest attendanceevents in the world - but they have something that fewothers ever have…extreme job satisfaction!

Hand in hand with spectator attendancenaturally go revenue earnings, enabling the airshowworld to sustain itself to a degree. It is certainly not alucrative “money spinning” venture, but it is as acommercial sales platform, capable of generatingmulti-billion dollar contracts at the trade shows. Theactual organising, presentation and participation inairshows also provides a livelihood for a smallpercentage of people worldwide, particularlyprofessional display pilots and then of course,benevolent societies and their staff. Larger airshowssuch as Farnborough International and the RoyalInternational Air Tattoo in the UK, permanentlyemploy staff that plan each year’s show a year inadvance, down to the finest detail.

The first airshow ever is widely acknowledgedto have been held at Reims, France as early asAugust 1909, where some of Europe’s most famousaviators gathered to ‘wow’ the crowds with their newflying machines. The ability to just get airborne was inthose early days an achievement on its own. Four

years later in 1913, a Frenchman by the name of Pegoud was the first person to performaerobatics in a specially strengthened Bleriot and in the same year, Piotr Nesterov made the firstloop on 20 August 1913 in a Nieuport Monoplane. One of the first airshows in the United Stateswas held at Los Angeles, California in January 1910, where Glenn Curtiss was among theparticipants. By 1912, the U.S. Navy had already staged the first of many simulated dogfights atairshows and since then, manoeuvre routines have progressed steadily. Today, military flightdemonstrations and aerobatic teams such as the Red Arrows, Thunderbirds and Blue Angels , toname just a few, are a standard component of the air forces of many nations.

It was Mr Jean Coreau, Avions Marcel Dassault test and demonstration pilot that said:“Bringing together numbers of different aircraft of all types and categories from different nations onthe same airfield and let them fly all day long in front of spectators, you are building one of thelargest theatres in the world. If the fame of the show is big enough, it increases each year and youcan reach millions of spectators.”

Since the beginning of aviation, the stage has remained the same, but the increase inperformance and choreography has been amazing. A series of very short flights, which hardlydemonstrate even a fraction of the aircraft’s potential, provide the spectator with hours ofentertainment; many spectators secretly wishing to be the pilots actually ‘putting the aircraftthrough its paces’. At the same time, the rules governing airshow flying have become increasingly

With 200 aircraft typically on staticdisplay at the Royal International AirTattoo, the display line isapproximately two miles long and theairshow is attended by in excess of200,000 local and foreign visitorsduring the two public days. (RAFBenevolent Fund)

13

restrictive in terms of airspeed, altitude and manoeuvres, but modern aircraft, through theirincreased performance and agility, are currently able to comply more readily with the ever-increasing arena restrictions. For the display pilot, the display arena is a highly charged, hostileenvironment that requires absolute professionalism and the demonstration of the highest levels offlying skills. There is no room for mistakes, poor discipline or poor judgement by the display pilot.

So, with the primary requirement of the display pilot being to entertain and demonstrate theair vehicle, what are the basic guidelines of a good display? Well, simply to remain in view of thespectator while demonstrating the performance and flying qualities of the aircraft in a relativelyshort space of time, anything from four to eight minutes, typically. Safety rules are imposed notonly to restrict the manoeuvres due to available display volume, but also to reduce the risk to thespectators – such rules have evolved down the years, based on accidents and incidents of theearlier display pilots. In more modern times, such rules are obviously easier to comply with byhelicopters, low speed and VSTOL aircraft, but for the high performance aircraft, the piloting skillslevel required has increased as has the requirement for aircraft manoeuvring potential and agility.

Since the ‘barnstorming’ days following the end of World War I, when ‘surplus to militaryrequirement’ pilots and aircraft struggled to make a living in recessionary financial times, theairshow circuit has progressed steadily. Interestingly enough, the rate at which airshows havedeveloped worldwide as a business and a spectator sport, has accelerated exponentially over thepast fifteen years. Airshows have attracted many millions of dollars in sponsorship, not only forthe aircraft, but also for benevolent societies, museums and airfields.

AIRSHOW CATEGORIESThere are essentially four different categories of airshows, the commercially orientated

Business or Trade Shows, Military Shows, General Aviation Shows and Special Events such as“Fly-Ins”, carnivals, music concerts, tall ships and coastal resorts. Business shows, usuallypresented on a bi-annual basis such as Britain’s Farnborough International Airshow, France’sParis Airshow (Le Bourget), the United State’s Dayton Airshow (also referred to as the UnitedStates Air and Trade Show) and Russia’s MAKS, serve as some of the major showgrounds forcommercial sales in which the primary objective is the sale of aircraft and systems. Such hugecommercial ventures are normally presented on behalf of governments and their Ministry’s ofTrade and Industry, in cooperation with state aircraft, space and defence branches of industry thatorganize and present such international aviation and space salons.

Commercial airshows and exhibitions present the latest aerospace products andtechnology and have become a traditional and respectable site for negotiating business contractsof mutual interest. The huge market and unique potential of science and technology, attractsmany specialists representing the world’s aircraft, aerospace and transport industry. Typically, atRussia’s MAKS exhibition, more than 400 aerospace companies and organizations from twenty-four countries take part in the exhibition while more than 150 aircraft participate in the air displays.

Aircraft of all types and their applications are on display. Vendors of rocket systems,spacecraft and satellite technologies, aircraft and rocket engine technologies, airborne andground-support equipment, navigation and flight control systems, aircraft weapon systems,missiles, air defence systems, flight safety systems, materials and technologies, airfieldequipment, electronic communication systems and computer technologies, all form part of thecommercial exhibition showcasing their technologies.

During the large commercial airshow flying-programmes, some approximately 380 flightsare typically flown. The attendance by the “who’s who” of the aerospace business makes itappropriate to concurrently host numerous symposiums and seminars which are also presented topromote the interchange of scientific and technological information. In terms of attendance overthe 5 days, between 500,000 and 1,000,000 visitors could be expected to attend the majorexhibitions such as Farnborough, Dayton and Paris.

Billed as the world’s premier aerospace event, the Farnborough International 2002 Airshowsaw 1,260 companies exhibiting at the seventeen National Pavilions with fifteen different countriesproviding aircraft on display. The Society of British Aerospace Companies (SBAC) announced $9-billion worth of sales and contracts and 170,000 trade visitors attended the trade days precedingthe public days.

14

The second category, Military Airshows, whether Navy, Army or Air Force, has as its mainobjective, recruitment of young men and women into the military. In contrast to the Business TradeShows, the focus is a personnel recruiting and public relations effort, not necessarily alwaysshowmanship. As an example, the stated mission of the Blue Angels is “to enhance Navy andMarine Corps recruiting and to represent the naval service to the civilian community, its electedleadership and foreign nations”. The Blue Angels serve as role models and goodwill ambassadorsfor the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, representing the best of naval aviation. A Blue Angel s flyingdisplay exhibits the choreographed refinements of Navy-trained flying skills, presenting aerobaticmanoeuvres of the four-plane diamond, as well as the fast-paced, high performance manoeuvresof the two solo pilots.

Military airshows are organised by the military themselves and are essential components ofany armed force’s public relations campaign to provide the citizens of that particular country withexposure to the aviation hardware available to that country. People want to see where their taxmoney is going and watching the ‘demos’ like those at the airshows, really shows them what theyget for the billions that they pay in tax. Military airshows can, and have often been used as a‘show of force’, particularly during the Cold War years.

In the USA, air support officials at the Horsham Air Station said the ‘Sounds of Freedom’Airshow was designed to invite locals onto the base to see their tax dollars at work. The show hadbeen held periodically since the Navy took over the base in 1943, and private performances wereheld even before that. In 1997, when the Blue Angels performed, the base drew nearly 500,000spectators. Local and national military officials touted the events as an important recruitment tool,especially as overall enrolment in the armed forces dwindled. Milton R. Shils, president of theDelaware Valley Historic Aircraft Association, said that the ‘Sounds of Freedom’ Airshow wasimportant to his group for publicity and recruitment, and the members anticipated the festivitieseach year.

However, more importantly, the World War II veteran said that the events inspired youngadults not only to join the military, but also to become aviators. He pointed to his own past, as ateenager he had met Amelia Earhart and Charles Lindbergh at an airshow and was encouraged tobecome a pilot. “As a child, to reach out and touch these aviators was inspiring,” he said. “Theycan be ground mechanics, they can be crew chiefs, or aviators themselves - these are the menand women that help keep peace around the world.”

In the case of the Royal Air Force, the Red Arrow’s team was for many years a very potentrecruiting agent, although that is less true today. A significant number of officers and airmen, notjust aircrew, used to tell the Recruiting Staff that they wanted to join the RAF because they hadenjoyed watching the Red Arrows at airdisplays. The Red Arrows, in turn,demonstrate British skill and technology to anenormous number of people each year,including over 2.5 million Americans during the1993 USA Tour and several million moreduring the 1995/96 tours of the Middle East,Africa, Far East and Australia. At SydneyHarbour alone, 650,000 spectators watchedon ‘Australia Day’ in January 1996. Since theirestablishment on 6 May 1965 until the end ofthe 2002 season, the Red Arrows had flown3,654 public displays in 53 different countries.The fact that British Industry was prepared tofund similar tours to the Middle and Far East in1997 and 1999 seems to confirm the positivereturn on investment for both the aerospaceindustry and the Royal Air Force.

The Royal International Air Tattoo(RIAT) in the UK, has as its aims not only theraising of funds for the RAF Benevolent Fund,

The 170,000 member EAA Convention atOshkosh, normally held annually in July ofeach year, marked its 50 th anniversary in 2002and included one of the largest gatherings ofactive military aircraft ever at AirVenture .

15

but is also cleverly aimed at facilitating interaction and contact between air forces worldwide,making it a truly international military airshow. RIAT is in fact, a privately funded enterprise thatpays its own way and celebrated its 31st anniversary in 2002. It is claimed to be the largest militaryairshow in the world with approximately thirty-five air forces providing 150 aircraft in anuninterrupted eight hour flying display. It is also the only airshow in the world in which air forcescompete against each other over a three-day period for several trophies in different air and groundcategories.

The third category is the General Aviation shows, the largest of which is, of course, theUSA’s Experimental Aircraft Association’s (EAA) AirVenture held annually at Oskosh. In this case,the association uses the airshow to exhibit its latest experimental and home-built types, exchangeinformation on aircraft, systems, flying techniques, education and social interaction. In spite of theapparent capitulation by the Experimental Aircraft Association’s leadership to the Marketing gurus,EAA’s annual AirVenture 2002 was still the ‘primo aviation event’ of that year. Nowhere else in theworld was there such a blend of aircraft, flying, products, performances, projects and sheerentertainment to satisfy every aviator and enthusiast.

The modern trend is that most airshows tend to have a specific theme or set of themessupporting the airshow event and in 2001, the theme at AirVenture was ‘Aviation Firsts’. Specialattention was given to those who had participated in any number of firsts, first through the soundbarrier, first to reach Mach 2, first to fly around the world un-refuelled, first around the world in aballoon, first African-American fighter group, first female space shuttle commander, to mention afew. Some 750,000 people visited and even though down from previous years, about 10,000aircraft ‘flew in’, including over 2,400 show planes, 653 homebuilts, 135amphibian/floatplanes/sea-planes, 103 antiques, 23 aerobatic, 434 classics, 389 ultralights, 316contemporaries, 419 warbirds, 8 specials and 1 replica.

For six days, with over 500 educational forums, more than 750 exhibitors including exhibitsby NASA and the USAF, combined with non-stop flying displays, made this one of the prestigeaviation events in the world. Such top-quality airshows naturally not only attract hundreds ofthousands of spectators, but also some of the world’s top aerobatic pilots who provide the bestdemonstration flying that aviation has to offer.

In April 2002, the Sun ‘n Fun in Lakeland, Fla., the second-largest aviation event in theworld, attracted more than 630,000 people. There were 7,500 aircraft, 500 exhibitors and 3,000volunteer staff. Also in 2002, the world famous Biggin Hill Air Fair in the UK celebrated its 39 thanniversary while at Duxford, home of the Imperial War Museum’s flying warbird collection, fourmajor airshows were hosted; each year, approximately 500,000 spectators attend the airshowsand visit the museum.

As the 50th anniversary AirVenture convention wound down on 28 July 2002, EAApresident Tom Poberezny gave his traditional wrap up to the media. “I couldn’t be happier,” he toldreporters. Final numbers weren’t ready, he said, but a reasonable guess at attendance would be750,000, short of a record, but still a healthy total. With the uncertainty in the economy and 9/11,they still came out in great numbers,” he said. The number of exhibitors set a record, and vendorswere happy: “This is all anecdotal but by all reports, they did very well and better than expected.It’s very encouraging at a time when everyone is worried about the economy.” As the number ofaircraft parked at Wittman Field topped 2,500, new areas had to be opened up – participation andattendance on such a huge scale bears out the popularity of such aviation events in the USA.

Then there are, of course, the hundreds of smaller airshows all over the world – maybe notnecessarily as well publicised and attended as the major international events, but the hazards andthreats to safety of flight are nevertheless the same as at international airshows. In fact, thesmaller airshows at remote airfields may even pose greater hazards and risks due to poorsupervision and regulation enforcement, topography, mountains, high-tension wires, birds and lackof sophisticated fire and rescue services.

It bears mentioning that many civilian airfields are responsible for the maintenance, repairand overhead costs of their facilities, all at a cost to the members of on-site flying clubs, the localcommunity or municipality. Many airfields even house museums and vintage aircraft collections.Maintaining such facilities is expensive and in many cases, such airfields present an airshow atleast once a year to generate the funds necessary to subsidise their existence and activities.

16

There is no question about it, airshows are an accepted entertainment medium worldwide withevidence that it is growing steadily. The future growth rate will however, be determined by threatsto safety and the increased costs induced by security.

Today more and more heavy and high performance aircraft are being operated on theairshow circuit. A few years ago, the thought of high-powered piston and ex-military jet aircraftbeing displayed by civilian pilots around the world, was unthinkable - today it is a reality. Civilianand ex-military pilots alike, can and do get their hands on high momentum, high-poweredmachines and this up’s the ante in terms of potential airshow accidents and incidents. The need toperform and demonstrate is high and the desire for these pilots to show-off their proud acquisitionsoften leads to accidents as their inexperience battles to come to terms with high torque values, oldvintage aerodynamics and high momentum. And then of course, there are a large number ofaircraft operators all competing for a limited ‘budget pie’ which places pressure on the operators,not only in financial terms, but also in terms of the kind of aircraft and acts that they need toprovide.

In some countries and particularly the UK and US where ex-military and someexperimental airshow aircraft operate on a permit or exemption basis, meaning that they may notbe operated for commercial reward, airshow revenue is often the only or major source of financingthis venture. Inadequate funding can also lead to operators not applying the commensurate highlevels of maintenance required, not getting sufficient display practice and perhaps pushingthemselves to provide airshow organizers with a more spectacular ‘act’, particularly when twosimilar types are competing for the same slot.

A new entertainment phenomenon on the airshow circuit in the USA and gaining inpopularity as an alternative format to airshows, is air racing. Air racing has moved on from beingan independent racing event and has been integrated into the airshow format on certainoccasions. The Formula V Air Racing Association is the pioneer in adapting air race operations tothe established airshow format and its FAA-approved two-mile racecourse, fits most airshow sites.Each aircraft carries $1 million liability insurance coverage and all aircraft are single-seat,homebuilt experimental licensed, built especially for air racing, and powered by 60 hp engines.These racers reach top speeds around the racecourse of over 170 mph. Using a variety of colourschemes, raceplane design itself, is regulated by the association while technical and safetyinspections are performed by the association before each event to ensure compliance with therules.

Closed-course pylon air racing for Formula V is generally two or more daily air racesaround a two-mile oval course directly in front of the crowd. The race starts from a stationary starton the runway; the aircraft takeoff in rows, then turn onto the race course and fly eight laps. Whatappears especially exciting for the spectators is that racing altitude is 50 to 100 feet above groundlevel which makes for spectacular viewing, in fact, this air sport is regarded as a true competitiveairshow sport with broad spectator appeal, similar to auto races. All race pilots hold FAA-recognized “Letters of Air Racing Competency” issued by the Formula V Air Racing Association.The popularity of these events is slowly increasing amongst airshow spectators looking for thatextra excitement from airshows that regulations have over the years, somewhat dampened. Bythe very nature of airshow racing, it is equally hazardous and several spectacular accidents haveoccurred in the past few years.

DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGYAlthough no formal definitions appear to exist for the various categories of aviation

exhibitions, based on the Longman Family Dictionary, the following definitions are consideredappropriate in the context of airshows. The word “exhibition” is defined as “a public showing” andtherefore makes all public aviation showings, be they a static or flying, an exhibition of some sort.

In terms of aviation exhibitions, further subdivisions are possible, the word “demonstration”,as a noun is defined as “a showing and explanation of the merits of a product to a prospectivebuyer” which immediately brings with it the connotation of a commercial venture, thus theterminology ‘commercial demonstration’. The word “display” as a verb, means “to expose to view”,and as a noun “a presentation or exhibition of something in the public view”.

17

Exhibition flying may thus be subdivided into two sub-sections, ‘display flying’ typicallyassociated with that seen at airshows worldwide and ‘demonstration flying’, such as commercialdemonstrations to prospective customers. The demonstration flights can be further subdividedinto ‘commercial display flying’ and ‘commercial demonstration flying’, dependent on the ultimateobjectives of the flights.

In the case of the ‘commercial display flight’, the pilot displays the all-round performanceand flying characteristics to the prospective buyer’s team watching from the ground. The‘commercial demonstration’ flight on the other hand, typically includes the carriage of theprospective buyer’s test pilots, representatives or technical members of the evaluation team; thetechnical assessment and details of the aircraft are relevant in assessing the performance andhandling qualities of the aircraft. The ‘commercial’ display or demonstration flights are alsoreferred to as ‘product demonstration flights’.

SPECTATORS

So, who normally attends airshows? Why do they go in their thousands, often spendingseveral hours to reach their destinations? What is it that makes spectators continuously return tospecific airshows year after year? Although accurate information is not readily available, statisticsgathered by the International Council of Airshows (ICAS) in the United States through their EventOrganizer Survey during 2000, estimated that between 15 and 18 million spectators attendbetween 300 and 350 airshows throughout North America each year. Figures released by ICAS

also indicated that airshows draw large numbers of demographically attractive spectators - a well-educated, affluent group of men, women and children of all ages; 36% are female, 64% male, 41%are single, 59% married. In 2000, more than 70% of the audience at an airshow had some collegeeducation and 75% reported a household income of $35,000 or more. Interestingly enough, theaverage spectator was just under 39 years of age, but more than 53% of spectators were between30 and 50, indicating that airshows cater for a wide spectrum of spectators, both the young, futureaviation recruits and also the more mature, ‘old hand’.

Two years later, the 2002 Airshow Spectator Survey conducted at 20 different locations,surveyed 4,000 people at airshows in North America with questions ranging from how far theydrove to see the show, to how many people think they’re getting a good enough ‘bang for theirairshow bucks’. The ICAS survey revealed that the average spectator was 41 years old with anaverage household income of around $55,000 annually. Most had some college education,although not necessarily a degree and drove less than twenty miles to bring the family to see theshow at which they will spend between three-and-a-half and five-hours at the event and more thanlikely, they have been there before. “Indirectly, the spectators are telling you that they’re going tobe back at your show next year,” said International Council of Airshows President John Cudahy.“So it would be worth your while to reach out to them, make them feel like part of something.”Particularly interesting statistics are that only 10 to 15 % of the airshow audience are real ‘aviationenthusiasts’, the loyal fan base if you will, so 85 % of the crowd choose to go to an airshow for ‘aday out’! For these people aviation and flying is today taken for granted and it is this group whichneed to be focussed on to ensure large attendance at future airshows.

The biggest draw card? In the USA, military aerobatic teams like the Blue Angels ,Thunderbirds and Canada’s venerable Snowbirds. “Is that any different than before 9/11?” asked

Display Flying

Commercial Display Flying Commercial Demonstration Flying

Demonstration Flying

Exhibition Flying

Schematic Diagram of Exhibition Flying Definitions.

18

Cudahy? “No, so that suggests to ICAS that we need to continue to support the military howeverwe can.” After military demonstration teams, spectators said they came to see modern militaryaircraft, military static displays, civilian flying exhibitions and warbird static displays, in that order.Although the poll is conducted every two years, Cudahy said he wanted to get behind thenumbers. “We want to know more about ‘psycho-graphics’ as opposed to demographics. Whatdo spectators do for a living? How many times have they gone skydiving? What kind of car dothey own?” The ICAS president said that the organization would begin taking samples onlifestyles and spending patterns again from 2003. While home ownership and household incomerose between the 2000 and 2002 surveys, education and male-to-female ratios were roughly thesame. What to do with all these numbers? Cudahy said he had a plan. “We’re working to contactnational-level sponsors and brand managers, to tell them there’s a fairly sophisticated audience atairshows”, he said.

On entrance charges, Cudahy said “My personal feeling is that prices are too low; theaverage price for an adult ticket in 2000 was $8.00 and while most military shows, indeed the threebiggest shows in North America are free”, the survey showed most people would be willing to paymore. A variety of factors obviously affects attendance figures at airshows in a given year. Forinstance, does the airshow charge admission or is it free? Is weather a factor, or have there beenscheduling concerns? Traffic congestion is one of the major aspects that adversely affects thespectators enthusiasm; airfields were not designed to handle the almost instantaneous dumping ofbetween 120,000 to 200,000 spectators on their doorsteps. Fair comment from a disappointedenthusiast: “Almost 70,000 spectators at the last ‘all team’ Snowbirds , Red Arrows , Thunderbirdspublicity gala and just getting there was a half-day experience. This from a guy who was up at 4a.m. to try and get the ‘morning experience’ with just the pilots and aircraft on the flight line at 6a.m. –7 a.m., and for what?”

RIAT 2002, returning to RAF Fairford after two years at RAF Cottesmore following majorupgrading to Fairford, provided the British enthusiasts with a glimpse into the future format ofairshow logistics following September 11. Personal body searches to each of the 100,000+spectators and poor vehicle access to parking areas, resulted in a fifteen-mile long traffic tailbackswhich took vehicles up to four-hours to traverse. Many irate spectators turned away and vowednever to return but rather to use their savings to make the trip to Oskosh instead. Yet, despite the‘bad traffic days’, there are a number of airshows worldwide whose attendance figures continue toplace them among the highest attended shows in the world.

It would appear that ‘Bad traffic days’ are a common problem for airshow spectatorsworldwide. According to a report in the Greenville News (USA), airshows aren’t dead, despite thebest efforts of the uninformed press, the FBI, the TSA, and befuddled local officials. The 2003Greenville (SC) Air Festival held in April, which featured the Air Force Thunderbirds and the GreenBeret jump team, flooded the Donaldson Center. The resulting throngs created “a massive trafficjam that snarled cars and trucks and forced some people to park wherever they could and walkmiles to the airshow’s location.”

Some of the show’s 60,000 estimated ticket-buyers wanted their $20 back, saying theshow’s planners didn’t do their jobs, the police traffic detail was too small and the volunteersweren’t trained. The paper noted that “Chuck Hodge, executive director of Greenville Events, saidabout 40,000 watched the show from inside the Donaldson Center on the Saturday afternoonwhile another 15,000 watched from outside. “We honestly just got overwhelmed,” he said. Peopleparked everywhere. Some 5,000 cars made it into the real parking lot; others stopped by theroadside.

What was the problem? When something’s this screwed up, in most cases, one has tolook for bureaucratic involvement. Sure enough, in this case, the paper noted, “Part of theproblem was that organizers had to switch where ticket holders entered at 1 p.m. The mainentrance was on Delaware Street but organizers had to reroute drivers to a narrower road tocomply with Federal Aviation Administration regulations on where an airshow audience could sit.”What is evident from the two preceding examples, is that in modern society, man’s patience hasbecome shorter, the ability to sustain the frustration of long queues at any event is one of themajor challenges.

19

The modern fare-paying spectator does not want to ‘struggle’ to be entertained, after all, they arepaying for entertainment, not frustration. Surely, the most important advise to airshow organiserstherefore, is to ensure that the fare paying spectator’s entertainment pleasure is not frustrated bypoor logistics, that the basic essentials are in place. Under basic essentials, the first element isaccess, access to the venue must be relatively easy without long hours spent trying to gain entry;this implies that traffic flow should be relatively unimpeded and that security checks should notresult in a build-up of thousands. Sufficient spectator enclosures must be provided with easy accessto food and beverage outlets while toilet facilities must be readily accessible. Failure by showorganisers to meet the minimum requirement of the spectator’s basic needs at anairshow, willnegate the opportunity of getting the spectators to return next time around.Although spectators worldwide are required to pay entry fees at most airshows, there are cases atmilitary airshows in most countries where no entrance fee is charged. This is due mainly to thefact that since the aircraft and airshow resources are funded by taxpayer’s money, the principle ofcharging a fee for the taxpayer to see ‘his own equipment’ demonstrated, is difficult to justify.However, in recent times, this ‘honourable’ principle has been overridden by the stark realities ofshrinking military budgets worldwide, air forces having to use the entry fees to subsidise theoverhead costs of presenting the airshows.There is no stereotype airshow spectator; airshow spectators, just as theatre or moviegoers,extend across the entire range of the personality spectrum and they are selective in their choice ofairshow attendance, wanting to see some specific aircraft types or a specific pilot displaying aparticular aircraft. Rumours, media speculation or reported unserviceabilities are often sufficient tomake the more ‘selective spectator’ hesitant to attend.Not only is there also a difference in preference between fixed wing and rotary wing enthusiasts,but also within the fixed wing category, there are significant differences in spectator preferences.Asked what spectators ‘liked the most at airshows’ in the USA, the reactions varied from person toperson – the answers provide an educational insight into the mind of some of the airshowspectators. “If showmanship was the criterion, I’d vote for the F-16 displays which are ten timesmore exciting than a bunch of aerobatics. I tend to find prop stuff very boring, I like the wholespectacle of a jet display - the noise, the afterburner flame, the car alarms going off”, was oneopinion.

On the other side of the opinion spectrum: “aerobatics is about as exciting in jets aswatching a dog sleep - the kind of aerobatics I like to watch have to do with amateurs in pistonengines, then it becomes exciting. Anybody can do aerobatics in a robot airplane, not many cando it flying by the seat of their pants”. One forthright spectator was rather more direct: “Not tosound too jaded, airshows are boring. So many people getting drunk, spilling crap all over andclogging the flight lines with kids-on-shoulders; you can’t take a lawn chair and watch from thecomfort of an umbrella and a beer cooler like you could back in the 70’s and early 80’s”.

Another spectator was disappointed that “safety and noise abatement demands restrict thevariety and scope of show routines, only a given set of manoeuvres may be performed, and thesehardly ever change, year to year. I would rather see simulated air combat manoeuvres, put upsome rock-concert/football stadium screens with the HUD pictures being shown real-time, makeeverybody sign an insurance waiver against claiming any form of damages and do the display atsome ‘way-the-hell-out-there’ airports”. Interestingly enough, this is not an uncommon sentiment,albeit a minority.

This comment from another spectator in the USA: “Until the horrendous crash of theFrecce Tricolori at Ramstein in 1988, they treated their AM-339’s almost like Lipizanner’s, ‘bowing’them and doing opposing loops from really low crossing starts with a solo through the middle andall kinds of neat stuff as well as their famous ‘behind the crowds’ openers. I would like to see moreof this from U.S. teams. Challenging and different show routines and not so much formation‘arrow-roll-to-diamond-and-back’ stuff. Precise it may be, but so is counting the holes in ceilingtiles”.

Comment from another more ‘gung-ho’ type: “I for one KNOW I’m risking my life anytime Ilet a 400 mph aircraft within about half a mile of me and pointed in my direction, even if it eats dirtthat instant. I would sign any waiver and consider it worthwhile. Let all the wimps listen to the

20

news broadcasts about ‘dangerous airshows’ and stay at home!” Such comments, however,actually have no place in the professional airshow environment and should be carefully consideredsince it sums up one of the dangers for display pilots. Aware that spectators are becoming moredemanding, pilots may go out and try to perform even more spectacular manoeuvres – its calledshowmanship and herein lies a potential trap for the display pilot and the airshow routine design.

It is obvious that the ‘gung-ho’ spectator category really has no understanding of thedynamics and risks involved – it is not a philosophy that can be accepted or practiced byorganisers and display pilots. It would be unprofessional and totally unacceptable to design anairshow to satisfy the minority of spectators’ hunger for sensationalism and an ‘adrenaline rush’.Could it be that ‘highly regulated’ shows are safer? Could it be that some spectators come toairshows to subsidise their own need for an adrenaline rush? Could it possibly be that somespectators attend an airshow knowing that the high-risk environment is conducive to an accident oris this just pure bravado from the ‘macho’ spectator? Would the same sentiments have beenexpressed by this specific spectator after watching the Ukrainian Air Force’s Su-27 plough throughthe spectator enclosure at Lviv in 2002 killing 86 and injuring more than 156 spectators? Not likely– such a cavalier approach to aviation and display safety would ring the death knell for airshows allover the world.

This change in emphasis by spectators is recognised worldwide – spectators wanting moreentertainment from the airshows, more than just the standard manoeuvres that they have watchedover the many years. In South Africa, at the Test Flight and Development Centre bi-annual “Fly-In”, the organisers tried to do meet the increased entertainment demands of the spectators. In aneffort to break away from staid old traditions and provide something different, HUD camera videowas telemetered to large screens, miniature cameras installed in the cockpit were also use totransmit audio and video to a large sport screen providing the spectator with the closest form ofrealism by trying to put the spectator in the aircraft. Since the airfield is co-located on a weaponsrange, it is also possible to demonstrate weapon’s releases and the firing of air-to-ground rocketsand guns. At the 75 th and 80th SAAF anniversary celebrations at Air Force Base Waterkloof (SouthAfrica), a selection of 1 versus 1 choreographed air combat manoeuvres were flown at low level inan attempt to increase spectator interest in the core functions of military pilots.

Israeli Air Force wings parades used to provide fine examples of firepower demonstrations,providing the reason to “show-off” the air force, the equipment and the skills of the pilots. In thepast, wings parades included a truly impressive airshow which included simulated air combatmanoeuvres, mock-attacks using the joint forces and the firing of rockets, guns and missiles atstatic targets, all this against the backdrop of inspiring classical music. Spectators watched infascination as the individual manoeuvres and counter tactics were flown, the use of chaff andflares adding to the realism – all this, just 500 metres from the display line! The experience isenough to guarantee enthusiasm and public support for the air force and establish pride in thecountry’s military forces while simultaneously providing a never to be forgotten experience for thespectator.

In an effort to feed the demands of fare paying spectators, airshow organisers areattempting to improve on each airshow. At Dayton’s airshow to feature Warbird Acts WWII,dramatic historical WWII re-enactments with explosive pyrotechnics ignited the 2002 VectrenDayton Airshow. The past was brought alive for fans both young and old with TORA TORATORA’s Pearl Harbour re-enactment of that day which will live in infamy. WWII Warbird combatmission simulations acts also featured realistic, high-tech, crowd-thrilling pyrotechnics that tookspectators into the heat of battle.

As Japanese fighters unexpectedly approached, airshow fans were transported back intime to 7 December 1941 with precisely choreographed flying, spectacular explosions, strafing,dogfights, realistic sound effects and a historic narration for a chilling recreation of the attack onPearl Harbor. The presentation was dedicated to the men and women who lost their lives at PearlHarbor and in WWII. The Japanese Zero fighters flown by the Commemorative Air Force wereexpertly crafted replicas featured in a number of motion pictures including “Tora! Tora! Tora!”, the“Final Countdown,” and “Battle of Midway”. A B-17, B-25 and P-51 simulated a WWII combatmission complete with riveting bombing and strafing runs. The climax of the mission was the B-17simulated attack releasing a 2,000-foot “Wall of Fire” which increased the intensity as the “field of

21

heat” and the aftershock, similar to a small earthquake, shook the airfield. Such realism takes thespectator as close to reality as possible, it keeps young and old, male and female, fascinated – allprepared to return next year.

Given the hazards inherent in display flying an aircraft in close proximity to the ground, asin most dynamic sports, the risk of an accident is always present, much as in motor racing. Thequestion can rightly be asked: “how safe are airshows for pilots, spectators and the public?” Whatrisks are involved? Statistically, what are the probabilities of an aircraft accident at an airshow?

SPECTATOR SAFETYAlthough there were earlier airshow accidents in which spectators were killed, the major

safety watershed, which had a significant impact on the world of airshows and safety regulations,was the tragic crash of the Italian Air Force’s Frecce Tricolori at Ramstein in 1988 - sixty people

were killed and hundreds more injured. This put acompletely new perspective on safety regulations andthe rules for displaying aircraft to the public. This wasthe first year that the hazards of airshow flying werereally brought home in such dramatic fashion, not onlyto the display pilots worldwide, but also to the aviationregulatory authorities and the public.

Certainly, there have been several otherairshows in which spectators were killed, twenty-eightspectators killed and sixty-three injured atFarnborough, UK, in 1952. Eight spectators werefatally injured at the Paris Airshow in 1967 when aFouga Magister of the Patrouille de France failed torecover from the 9-ship bomb-burst, the crash debrisfalling amongst the spectators. Again at the ‘FlandersFly-In’ at Ostende, Belgium in 1997, the RoyalJordanian Falcons solo crash killed eight spectatorsand injured dozens more, a stark reminder to the

fallibility of the human being and the realities of the hazards of display flying. Although disastrous,certainly not the first and definitely not the last airshow accident at which spectators would bekilled. In most countries, spectator safety at airshows receives the highest priority in the planningof the airshows but as in all systems, none are perfect and accidents have occurred in the pastwith horrendous results. Just when airshows worldwide appeared to have achieved a standard in

5

2

5

89

1012

9

1513

02468

10121416

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Num

ber o

f Acc

iden

ts

Random sampling of the number of airshow accidents worldwide over a ten-year periodextending from 1993 – 2002. (Refer Chapter 3 for specific detail of each accident)

Three members of the Italian formationaerobatic team, Frecce Tricolori,collided during an airshow at Ramstein(Germany) killing sixty people andinjuring several hundred more whenone of the aircraft crashed into thespectators. (Robert Stetter)

22

which the safety of spectators was no longer jeopardised by display line incursions, the Ukraine AirForce Su-27 crashed into a spectator enclosure at an airshow killing eighty-six people and injuring156 making it the most devastating airshow in the history of the airshow circuit.

Regulations of course, can only go so far – the introduction of the human into a highlydynamic, high-energy environment complicates issues. Even though accidents at airshows dooccur, airshows still offer a consistently and historically safe environment for millions of spectatorseach year. Since current rules were implemented nearly fifty years ago, there has not been asingle spectator fatality at a North American airshow, an enviable safety record for any business.Europe and the rest of the world have however, not been as successful, but considering thatapproximately 125 airshows of one type or the other are presented annually in the UK, similarimpressive spectator safety statistics do actually exist for the UK.

Within the scope of an analysis conducted on airshow accidents worldwide since 1952,(Chapter 3), 703 (66%) of the accident victims were spectators in which 202 were killed and inexcess of 501 spectators were injured while attending airshows. During the same period, fourteenmembers of the public were killed and 100 injured at airshows worldwide. Analysing a randomsample of airshow accidents worldwide over a ten-year period extending from 1993 to 2002, a totalof at least eighty-eight accidents were recorded. What is significant is that there appears to havebeen a significant increase in the trend in the number of airshow accidents since 1996. The year2001 was the worst year by far with at least fifteen accidents while at the same time, quiteironically, the 2001 airshow season in the United States was the safest in the history of USairshows. Although statistical averaging has no specific significance in the analysis, it is instructiveto note that the average number of airshow accidents worldwide since 1996 has been anunacceptable ten accidents per year, a trend that cannot be allowed to continue without significantadverse effect on the future of airshows.

The relatively high accident rate of display aircraft outside of the United States during the2001 season, coupled with the totally unrelated September 11 terrorist tragedy in the UnitedStates, gave rise to an unprecedented increase in the threat to the survivability of the airshowworld. The drastic increase in insurance rates, not only for the aircraft owners, but also for theshow organisers and the requirement to improve anti-terrorist security, adversely affected civilianairshow organisers that eventually led to the cancellation of several smaller airshows worldwide.The costs could have been carried over to the public but that would have consequently resulted ina major decrease in attendance with all the negative spin-offs such as sponsorship withdrawal andcost overruns.

Poor decision-making and the susceptibility to making errors of judgement, especially inpressure situations, has resulted in some near misses and then also some of the most dramaticairshow accidents. All too often throughout the history of aviation, spectators have witnessedairshows and aerial demonstrations of aircraft that ended in destructive manoeuvres and the lossof life and aircraft.

The dramatic ejection of the Russian test pilot from the MiG-29 ‘high alpha’ fly-by at theParis Airshow in 1989, the crash of the Russian Tu-144 in 1993 and the Sukhoi Su-30 MKI at theParis Airshow in 1996, brought the total number of Russian aircraft display accidents at Paris tothree. This kind of high profile failure made it very difficult for the aviation world to developconfidence in the Russian pilot’s display discipline, equipment and skills and presented the “worstnightmare scenario” for the Russian aviation industry at large. The synchro-pair of Russian MiG-29s colliding with each other at RIAT Fairford in 1993 and the spectacular in-flight structural failureof the Northrop F-117 in September 1997 in Baltimore, Maryland, USA and many more, have allbrought the realities of display flying hazards directly to the spectators and the public in general.

Accidents at airshows are relatively infrequent, but do happen – wherever man andmachinery are involved, there are risks; the major cause of accidents remains man’s ficklenessand weakness in making sound judgement while operating such machinery in a highly dynamicenvironment.

It is an accepted fact that flying an airshow is high-risk, which means that the ‘primary task’is risk reduction. Throughout the aerospace world, risk reduction has usually been achieved byengineering as much as possible of the aircraft and associated systems for pilot safety, obviouslywithin the desired mission of the aircraft. However, airshows represent an exception to the

23

‘primary task’ rule of thumb because, given the accidentsin Ukraine, Ramstein, Ostende and elsewhere, they maysubject innocent bystanders to possible injury and death,for no particular reason.

Consider if you will, the millions of spectatorsattending airshows annually versus the number of peoplekilled at airshow crashes. Then run some numbersfor other incidents such as airliner crashes and evenautomobile crashes. A bad example? It’s like thisthough. People driving or flying from A to B are not doingso to be entertained and are generally not enticed intodoing so with the promise of entertainment, nor is theevent of driving directly staged or organised along thelines of a calculated risk.

A much better comparison would possibly be withother events in which machines are displayed for thepublic’s entertainment, typically, motor racing, boat racesand so forth. In these cases, the risk of death is alsorelatively low. The question then is, “should all suchevents that unnecessarily risk death or injury to thespectators be banned? The answer can be yes, but onlyif it is proposed that ALL such activities are banned.Millions of people attend airshows each year, they knowand accept that there is a small but finite risk as a resultof this activity just as skiing, cycling and roller-skatingcarry risks. In a legal sense, they sign no waivers.

On the conclusion of the USA airshow season in2001, the Charlotte (NC) Observer newspaper released areport indicating that since 1990, a total of 29 spectatorsand 231 drivers had been killed in automobile races.During that same period, 42 pilot deaths were recorded inairshows in the United States and Canada, but with nofatalities among spectators. “Though airshow safety hasdemonstrably improved over the last ten years, our entireindustry recognizes that there is still important work to bedone in this area,” said ICAS President John Cudahy.“We all look forward to the day when the safety record wehad this year becomes the norm rather than theexception.”

The philosophy that puts the risk on the customermay be accepted but actually, it flies in the face of legaldoctrines including, occupational safety. The people whoattend airshows are not told of the possibility of anaccident. Many activities such as mountain climbing,hiking, skydiving and playing contact sports are muchriskier but its is not suggested that these activities shouldbe banned, nor as hikers and climbers would they want tosee them banned. The reality is that nearly all hikers andclimbers make a conscious choice of actively participatingwhereas the attendees of airshows regard themselves asspectators to be entertained – but it is a case ofconscious choice.

It wouldn’t be expected of a movie theatreaudience to be put at a small or even unnecessary risk.The airshow audiences are just like movie theatre audiences in this regard, they are not

On 4 June 2001, the Spitfire pilotreported an on-board fire and turningback for a forced landing on theairfield, lost control on short final aftertaking evasive manoeuvres to avoid agroup of spectators that hadencroached the emergency landingarea, auto-rotating into a fireball on theairfield. (François Henriot)

24

expendable. What if a fire breaks out? Not everyone will ‘exit in an orderly fashion’, someonecould be trampled on or even smothered. Although a moviegoer is not constantly thinking aboutthat when at the theatre, it is nevertheless always a possibility - just like the remote likelihood of anairshow crash. A large theatre chain probably does not have the financial muscle likegovernment’s do to cater for the litigious modern society.

Is this akin to the lady who sued the manufacturer of the smoke detector? She took thebatteries out of the device to power her ‘portable radio’ and her house subsequently burnt down.She sued because there was no warning label on the detector saying it wouldn’t work withoutbatteries! It seems that in the modern world we try harder and harder to legislate ourselves awayfrom having to use common sense, because it’s growing LESS common. The people who attendairshows are not told of the possibility of an accident, but nor do they need to be, just as nobodytells one of the possibility of getting struck by lightning every time there’s a storm, either. With thespate of liberal political correctness, a litigious society and personal freedom, it is not consideredtoo far-fetched for someone to be struck and then sue a TV weatherman.

Spectators don’t sign waivers when arriving at theatres or airshows, nor do they whenentering a grocery store, boarding a bus or playing a game of soccer in the park. There was atime when adults were expected to inform themselves to some degree. The people who attendairshows are not told of the possibility of accident, however, the airshow programmes all havesignificant sections in them explaining the safety rules in place. The commentators make a pointof asking people to stay in designated areas and behind the tapes that delineate the safe zones.Theatres have burned down in the past, rows of seats have collapsed and people have died ofheart attacks in movie theatres. In fact, it is doubtful that there is ANY difference in the statisticalrisk of attending an airshow in the US or UK and a movie theatre.

At the other end of the spectrum, there are still display pilots who lack that bit of maturitywhich enables them to understand the criticality of spectator safety, that understand the potentialof a jet aircraft’s power without having to prove it to the innocent spectators. Spectators love to bethrilled by low-flying, but, there is a limit to just how low. On 21 June 2001, a SAAB Viggen jetswept very low over a group of spectators watching the display at the airport near Uppsala, 60kmnorth of Stockholm military airport in Sweden. The aircraft passed so low overhead the spectatorsthat six of the spectators on the ground suffered burns, three of them seriously. Officials did notsay how low the aircraft was flying, but a news release from the air base said a group of sevenpeople was watching the exhibition at a distance of about 75 metres from the runway.

Christer Ulriksson, a spokesman for the air force's F16 wing in Uppsala, said the injuredwere three men and three women, all in their 20s. “Three suffered serious, but not life-threateningburns”, he said. The injured were taken to the Akademiska Hospital in Uppsala and one womanwas quickly released, spokesman Claes Juhlin said. The other five remained in hospital, with onewoman in a very serious condition. “She was not so badly burned, but was thrown to the groundby the shockwave and suffered another serious injury,” Juhlin said. Ulriksson did not know exactlyhow low the aircraft was flying but speculated that it could not have been more than 20 metresabove ground level, judging by the injuries.

In all likelihood, to inflict burns, the Viggen would have passed by at a height more like fivemetres. He said the distance of the injured people from the runway did not violate airport rules butwas “inconveniently close”. It was not clear why the aircraft flew over the group at such a lowheight, Ulriksson said. “We do not know why. But we know the members of the group wereacquainted with the pilots of this wing so he may have wanted to give them some sort of extrasalute,” he said. This incident led to a Police investigation. (Associated Press)

PUBLIC SAFETYNow there are two very distinct areas that relate directly to airshow safety, particularly with

regard to the spectators and public. The first, crowd protection, was addressed worldwide a longtime ago by the introduction of display minimum safety distances and minimum heights. Thesecond, has never been adequately addressed anywhere in the world and it directly concerns thesafety of people and property in the peripheral areas that surround a show site. This includes allpeople and property that must be overflown by aircraft as they manoeuvre and stage for their flightpath parallel to the show crowd. Even when the 1500 feet ‘stand-off’ line is observed, there are

25

risks in the turn-around areas. Aircraft in these areas are being flown at maximum performance,many times at the corners of their respective flight envelopes.

In the case of aerobatic teams such as the Thunderbirds or Blue Angels , a maximum effortis made to avoid inbound and departing flight paths directly over developments and heavilypopulated areas. Even then, after viewing the area maps and carefully planning each availableshow line, the inbound and outbound line and a show centre point for the team lead must beselected. In most cases, this will be a runway that meets the distance criteria from the crowd. Theproblem is now, and always has been, the ‘fringe’ areas. It’s not enough to say that peopleshouldn’t live within a certain distance of an airport, but unfortunately, that argument seems readily

available to some who like to debate such issues.There IS danger there, and to be quite frank,

time and time again pilots and airshow organisershave taken an active part in FAA and militarydiscussion groups that have tried to address theseissues – the bottom line is that there is no easyanswer. Most display pilots may never have brokenthe crowd rules, but make no mistake about it, duringturn-arounds, the pilot and the aircraft are often‘maxed-out’ in the peripheral areas on both sides ofthe show line - and there are houses and peoplebelow the aircraft all the time.

Collateral damage is often a result of anairshow accident. The hazards facing spectators atairshows are generally known and regulations areimposed to address spectator safety, however, in thecase of the general public not even involved with theairshow, there is no elegant solution. The concerns byinhabitants of housing estates around the airfield arecertainly well founded with added housing insuranceimplications. The area in and around an airfield beingused for an airshow is at risk to collateral damage inthe event of an aircraft crashing outside of the airfield.In an analysis of airshow accidents, fourteen membersof the public were killed and one hundred were injured– members of the public that just happened to be in thewrong place at the wrong time, were killed or injured byairshow crash debris.

The innocent bystanders, the public killed orinjured by collateral airshow accident damage, ispertinently illustrated in the case of the Tupolev Tu-144accident at the Paris Airshow in 1973 in which ninemembers of the public were killed and sixty injured bycrash debris coming down on the village ofGoussainville, a few miles from the Le Bourget airport.There was also the case of the Indian Air Force Mirage2000 crash in Delhi (1989) which not only claimed thelives of two spectators, but also injured twentymembers of the public outside the airfield. The USAFF-117 catastrophic in-flight break-up at an airshow inMaryland, USA during September 1997 resulted ininjury to four members of the public and also to severalhomes.

In October 2002, two Indian Navy IL-38 maritime patrol aircraft in formation practicing foran airshow to mark the 25 th anniversary of the Indian Navy’s 315 Squadron, collided in mid-air inthe western state of Goa killing fifteen people. One of the aircraft impacted on a road and the

No more was the hazardous reality ofdisplay flying more dramaticallydemonstrated and internationalattention to airshow safety morepublicly scrutinised than the accidenton 28 August 1988 in Ramstein, WestGermany. (Robert Stetter)

26

other on a building construction site killing all twelve aircrew while crash debris killed threelabourers and injured seven.

These issues of collateral damage will never be able to be satisfactorily addressed. Theshows will continue because people want them and because in reality, there is really no way tosolve the ultimate safety issue concerning the peripheral areas. People will always buy propertynext to an airport and some will move away but construction developments will continue and littlewill change. Pilots who, after viewing the aerial photograph of the display area and attending thesafety meeting, choose the ‘best available’ approach and departure flight paths to avoid thepopulated areas as much as they can, and still arrive at the show line with the requiredcombination of airspeed, altitude and g.

The realisation of the hazards have not gone unnoticed by the airshow performers,particularly those in the military. The seriousness and commitment with which professionals havehad to ‘up’ their attitude to zero accident tolerance display flying can best be illustrated by theexample in which the United States Navy’s Blue Angels suspended their demonstrationprogramme because the team’s leader was concerned about his own flying performance. CmdrDonnie Cochran, 41, did not want to jeopardise the safety of the team’s pilots and decided to takehis team back into intensive training after lining up above the wrong runway during a high-speed,low level manoeuvre at Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach, VA, on 23 September 2001.

One of the heart-stopping manoeuvres in front of a crowd of 150,000 required four aircraftto cross over a single point simultaneously from different directions, using two runways as their‘marks’. Cochran approached the point over the wrong runway, the other pilots saw that he hadmade a mistake and adjusted to it. The prudent question is: “In that particular manoeuvre, wassafety impaired?” Well, it could have been, but wasn’t necessarily. Part of professionalism isbeing able to recognise an incorrect/unsafe situation and with all formation members situationallyaware, compensating adequately to recover from the impending crisis situation.

The kind of self-evaluation leading to making such a publ