Jack Roush Crashes Plane in WI

[Jerry Clayton]

Crashes happen when A pilot runs out of altitude,airspeed and ideas all at the same time!

Jack's first mistake was choosing his little jet to go to an over crowded airport with thousands of airplanes that flew 60 knots slower than his .

What would you guys be saying if he had just made a 200 knot go around/fly by/over at 20 feet and did a victoty roll as he pulled up at the other end of the runway????

He could have claimed that it was a necessary go-around and the area had special permission to be used as an low level aerobatic airspace so he just did a pull up and roll??????

It is common at many airports in the world to be using mutiple runway operations and many times they are in close prox to a couple other fields doing the same---

Jack crashed a perfectly operating a/c------

[BOURRET]

To stay away from plane crashes, you need 1/3 of technical skill, 1/3 of judgement and 1/3 of luck.
You can only assess that you have no plane accident only once you are not flying anymore.

[Don]

Hersh, you having been there , I vaguely recall, subject to correction, from another news release the landings and take offs for the event number 40,000 +, is this a realistic estimate ?

In such incidents as Jack's, is the pilot's license automatically suspended until the investigation is completed or depends upon the circumstances etc and each case is treated individually ?

Thanks for mentioning " Airventure arrival procedures " for someone w/o aviation experience , sure helps to understand and appreciate the approach and air traffic control procedures.

[BT SNAKE]

Don,
I seem to recall the announcer saying there are over 4000 landings and takoffs per day. I believe
there is over 11,000 aircraft that attends the show.

You do not lose your ticket because of an accident.
I had to land a Cessna 310 at Midway because my right main would not deploy. At two in the morning not a fun thing to do. I managed to set her down and hold her off
the right side for as long as possible. The only
bad thing was I shut off both engines and the right prop stopped in a vertical position. when she hit the ground it made the swerve more severe.
There was tons of paperwork but I never gave up my ticket. I was back flying a day later.
There are situations where the FAA may ground you until further review. It depends on the accident and what caused it.
I'll also bellieve Jack won't fly again as PIC because of the damage to his eye. At his age it is hard enough to see with two eyes let alone one. If he does fly it will be with another highly skilled pilot in the right seat.

Hersh

[Jerry Clayton]

Was the lady with Jack rated as an pilot also, or just accompaning him on the trip???there are reasons that cockpits are restricted below 10,000

[TXBLU]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

The problem with the above scenario is it ASSUMES there was time to add power, climb or manuver.

FAR 91.3 states:

Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

Some pilots have more skill and experience than others. There can be huge differences in the way one aircraft responds to pilot input compared to other aircraft. The PIC is resposible for knowing the operating performance and limits of the aircraft he/she is flying. Good pilots give themselves an extra margin for safety.

Given the information presented here, I'm not sure it's reasonable to assign blame to any single individual, except for possibly the PIC. I wasn't there and have not seen any data that would explain exactly what happened. I can guess, assume, and rationalize all day long, but that would be less than conclusive. I don't know Jack Roush, nor do I know his flying experience, especially in that aircraft type. That being said, I have little sympathy for pilots that "get behind" the aircraft they are flying, and have an accident. But, so what? The aircraft is toast, Jack was severely injured, and it's the FAA's job to find out why.

As a casual observer with 30+ years of aviation experience (very little actaually operating an aircraft), I have an opinion as to what happened, but I am usually wrong, or at least not completely right. That being said, I think Jack was flying an aircraft type that was fairly new to him, in a very challenging environment for any pilot, and he "got behind" the aircraft without enough performance margin to be safe. The Controller's instructions may have been a factor, but I doubt they will be determined to be a causual factor.

Eric

[Jerry Clayton]

The procedures for the arrival of turbine powered and war bird aircraft are laid out on page 15-16 of the FAA notam covering the special airspace requirements for this event

[TXBLU]

Originally Posted by Jerry Clayton

The procedures for the arrival of turbine powered and war bird aircraft are laid out on page 15-16 of the FAA notam covering the special airspace requirements for this event

None of which supercedes FAR 91.3, but is good stuff to know when you look at what happened to Jack. Oh, and it's 32 pages of mostly good stuff!

Here it is: http://www.airventure.org/flying/2010_NOTAM.pdf

It states clearly: "This procedure is restricted to high performance turbojet and twin turboprop aircraft and to Warbird aircraft capable of cruising at 130 knots or greater. Slower Warbird aircraft shall use the VFR Arrival from Ripon."

One item of particular interest reads: "If your landing clearance appears unsafe because of spacing, speed of preceding aircraft, or any other reason, go around! A new sequence will be issued."

Sounds like basic airmanship to me...

By the way, FARs and notams are available online for free. It's public information.

Eric

[Tommy]

Originally Posted by TXBLU

Sounds like basic airmanship to me...

Very basic for anyone who's earned as much as a private pilot's license.

[Excaliber]

...sure is easy to say, or read this "basic" stuff. Pilot error is as well, what really happened is what I'm curios about. WHY didn't he make another pass? It's pretty clear that he didn't have time, so we back up and ask what happened when there WAS time? What were the real circumstances and events that led to this alleged "pilot error".

Without knowing the details, as is often the case, we virtually learn nothing more than "the guy screwed up." Not good enough for me. I ride a motorcycle, have for years, when I hear of an accident I want the details!!! Not something as meaningless as "driver error." Such detailed information is often impossible to come by, but, I still want it if I can get it.

[TXBLU]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

...sure is easy to say, or read this "basic" stuff. Pilot error is as well, what really happened is what I'm curios about. WHY didn't he make another pass? It's pretty clear that he didn't have time, so we back up and ask what happened when there WAS time? What were the real circumstances and events that led to this alleged "pilot error".

Without knowing the details, as is often the case, we virtually learn nothing more than "the guy screwed up." Not good enough for me. I ride a motorcycle, have for years, when I hear of an accident I want the details!!! Not something as meaningless as "driver error." Such detailed information is often impossible to come by, but, I still want it if I can get it.

Ah, there's the rub. We don't know what really happened, and won't know until the formal investigation is completed by the FAA, if ever. I think the point that was trying to be made earlier is that the pilot is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of his/her aircraft. Simple as that.

I know all of this can be difficult for non-aviation type folks to wrap their heads around, but that's the way it is. That is not meant to be offensive to non-aviviation people, but there is a certain mentality to flying that is required if you intend to survive the experience. Flying is dangerous. If you don't take it seriously, it will kill you.

Eric

[Excaliber]

No different than saying an operator of any vehicle or device is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of his/her machinery. It aint hard at all to wrap your head around it. Gun, auto, boat, air plane or whatever...

[tcrist]

Tommy,

Sounds to me like you are saying that no mater what it is Jacks fault because he was PIC.

If I was reading this correctly, You are a pilot, so tell me this.

If you were coming in for a landing and another plane came up underneath you (that you did not know was there) and hit the bottom of your plane, are you at fault? Hay, you are the PIC.

BTW, I am not saying that is what happened to Jack.

I am not saying who's fault it is or not. FAA will find out and then everyone will know because it is Jack Roush that was involved.

I have been in a couple of "close calls" in airplane's and thank goodness for the PIC or I would not be here. The thing is, "SH!T HAPPENS" sometimes its beyond the pilots control. Weather you like to believe it or not.

[Don]

Additional info etc., etc

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/A..._203091-1.html

http://www.avweb.com/news/airventure..._203026-1.html

Prior to today's NASCAR race, Jack was very briefly interviewed at the track. Do not recall the specific words he used, a replay of the interview would be more specific .

[Jerry Clayton]

go to ntsb.gov and pull up report NTSBID:CEN10FA443

there was also a midair encounter between two other aircraft

[Tommy]

Terry,
No, its not always the pilot's fault. Mechanical and medical problems sometimes cause accidents, and it's always possible to get hit by a meteorite or some other bizarre natural phenomenon that no reasonable person could have predicted. But none of that appears to have been a factor in the Roush crash.

During my time flying in the Air Force I read or have been briefed on at least a thousand aircraft incidents and accidents ranging from a maintenance man who ejected himself from a parked aircraft to four Thunderbird pilots who flew into the ground when the leader was having a problem. The vast majority of those accidents were at least partly attributable to pilot error. Virtually all accidents are the culmination of a series of events, any one of which might have prevented the accident had it happened differently. The pilot usually plays a role in one or more of those events.

I know no more about the Roush crash than anyone else expressing an opinion here on this thread. But I've read enough accident reports and been in enough airplanes that came close to crashing during landing attempts (I was an instructor pilot for many years) to have a good feel for what may have happened. Maybe when the accident investigation is concluded I'll be proved wrong and the pilot may not have been at fault. But I strongly doubt it.

I've never seen an accident report that said: the weather was good, the airplane was in good working order, the pilot did everything the way he should, and he crashed the airplane; tell the families of the passengers that sometimes sh_t happens.

[TXBLU]

Originally Posted by Tommy

Terry,
No, its not always the pilot's fault. Mechanical and medical problems sometimes cause accidents, and it's always possible to get hit by a meteorite or some other bizarre natural phenomenon that no reasonable person could have predicted. But none of that appears to have been a factor in the Roush crash.

During my time flying in the Air Force I read or have been briefed on at least a thousand aircraft incidents and accidents ranging from a maintenance man who ejected himself from a parked aircraft to four Thunderbird pilots who flew into the ground when the leader was having a problem. The vast majority of those accidents were at least partly attributable to pilot error. Virtually all accidents are the culmination of a series of events, any one of which might have prevented the accident had it happened differently. The pilot usually plays a role in one or more of those events.

I know no more about the Roush crash than anyone else expressing an opinion here on this thread. But I've read enough accident reports and been in enough airplanes that came close to crashing during landing attempts (I was an instructor pilot for many years) to have a good feel for what may have happened. Maybe when the accident investigation is concluded I'll be proved wrong and the pilot may not have been at fault. But I strongly doubt it.

I've never seen an accident report that said: the weather was good, the airplane was in good working order, the pilot did everything the way he should, and he crashed the airplane; tell the families of the passengers that sometimes sh_t happens.

Dang. You beat me to it. I was going to say virtually the same thing. My comments here were intended to be relative to the subject of Mr. Roush's accident. We can play "what if" all day and won't get any closer to finding out what happened on that flight deck on that day. It may end up being some kind of bizzare mechanical failure, but my experience tends to indicate otherwise.

My point was that the PIC is the ultimate authority for how his/her aircraft is operated. That simply means they get to decide if what they are cleared to do by ATC is safe to do. They may not always have to do exactly what a Controller tells them to do, but they will have to explain why they didn't.

Eric

[tcrist]

Originally Posted by Tommy

Terry,
No, its not always the pilot's fault. Mechanical and medical problems sometimes cause accidents, and it's always possible to get hit by a meteorite or some other bizarre natural phenomenon that no reasonable person could have predicted. But none of that appears to have been a factor in the Roush crash.

During my time flying in the Air Force I read or have been briefed on at least a thousand aircraft incidents and accidents ranging from a maintenance man who ejected himself from a parked aircraft to four Thunderbird pilots who flew into the ground when the leader was having a problem. The vast majority of those accidents were at least partly attributable to pilot error. Virtually all accidents are the culmination of a series of events, any one of which might have prevented the accident had it happened differently. The pilot usually plays a role in one or more of those events.

I know no more about the Roush crash than anyone else expressing an opinion here on this thread. But I've read enough accident reports and been in enough airplanes that came close to crashing during landing attempts (I was an instructor pilot for many years) to have a good feel for what may have happened. Maybe when the accident investigation is concluded I'll be proved wrong and the pilot may not have been at fault. But I strongly doubt it.

I've never seen an accident report that said: the weather was good, the airplane was in good working order, the pilot did everything the way he should, and he crashed the airplane; tell the families of the passengers that sometimes sh_t happens.

Sounds good to me. It just seemed that no matter what was said you went back to saying that it was always the pilots fault no matter what caused it. Did not seem correct to me.

You being a pilot and an instructor sure know more about this type of accident then I will ever know about.

I guess we all will find out what happened later, or maybe not.

[Jerry Clayton]

There is such a large group of NASCAR folks trying to fly that the feds need to require some special training/checks. they have an very high rate of accidents/injuries in there aircraft almost as there cars. Nascar does all this stuff for the racing but nothing for the transportation of its people.

[Don]

Jack's interview with ESPN at the Michigan NASCAR race. Note his choice of words mentioning the incident:

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5462445