Jack Roush Crashes Plane in WI

[Jerry Clayton]

I believe he has been advised of what terms to use in discussions---conflict with another aircraft---

When operating in a special airspace, you not only need to know what your operatopn rules are but also the rules for the other players

At this event, there were 3 different types of operation specs according to the performance of the aircraft----he obviously didn't know what to expect

Crash and groundloop???? Oh, well, if you can walk away

[Excaliber]

...he obviously didn't know what to expect

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

[Jerry Clayton]

Ernie---I guess it is 40 years of aviation experience flying into some very busy airports with multiple runway operations.

Go and read the special airspace notam----all of it---if you are going to participate in anything you need to know the rules of the game---Jack thought that he had a conflict with another aircraft not because of not knowing what he was doing but because he didn't know what the other aircraft was doing---Jack could of added power and did anything from a level low pass or pull up steeply--he was in a lightly loaded high powered high performance twin turbo fanned Jet-----

I used to relish the thought of getting a chance to do a Tom Crz top gun type fly by in a Boeing 777 because there was a baggage kart on the runway----

go read the notam and then come back and discuss the procedures

[Excaliber]

How you arrived at the conclusion is now clear:

It's a wild ass guess!

[Jerry Clayton]

Ernie I'm not even going to reply to that!!

[Excaliber]

Your supposition suggests Roush did not read, understand or blew off the landing procedures. His ignorance of these procedures then led to a crash.

Have you talked to Roush about this? Or, is it just a hunch?

You said, "He didn't know what to expect." Now, how do you arrive at the conclusion, the question remains unanswered.

[Bill Wells]

yet another perspective :'



http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#203136

I guess we will know once they think they know , no ? Bill

[Jerry Clayton]

Ernie

There was three distinct approah procedures being used--it was vital that the pilots not only knew there planes procedure but the other two also. Jack got behind the operation of his aircraft wondering about what the others were doing. The controllers started sending the other planes around giving Jack priourity. Jack was so far behind his aircraft that he was a witness!!!

If you haven't read the notam and the preliminary report, please do---and then maybe we can go over them in a time line matter so you get the picture as its obvious that you don't get it from the general talk on here. Nobody is jumping on Jack because he is Jack, we're just saying from years of studying flying and what went wrong where the blame seems to lie---

[Excaliber]

Let be clear that I'm not standing up for Roush because he's Roush, I would take the same position for any pilot in this case. No rush to judgement or firm opinion from this camp.

From my reading of the events I won't rule out pilot error, but I'd like to know the CAUSE, the subtle or gross events that led to error. Where ever and with who ever that error may lay. It does appear, from a couple of accounts I've read now, that there was at least confusion in the control tower, that could be a leading cause that ultimately ends up being "pilot error". Which is why my position is, pilot error is not that simple, it's easy to say, easy to point to, but it may be considerably more complex than that simple statement leads one to think.

Roush was cleared to land on the run way he crashed on. I would have to assume, until something indicates otherwise, he was familiar with the landing protocol(s). Was he "behind" the curve in getting the job done? Maybe, I don't see any specific data or examples that would point to that at this time. It is one possible explanation, "time" moves incredibly fast when dealing these issues. A pilot "getting behind" could be measured in a moment of hesitation, a garbled transmission, a conflicting tower report, what you SEE and what you HEAR (or thought you heard) at the same moment don't mesh. Which could be characterized as "pilot error". In some cases it may well be humanly impossible for the error to have been rectified, by anyone, when you understand the scope of how it went down.

[Jerry Clayton]

Have you read the notam?

Have you read the prelim report?

[Excaliber]

Jerry, don't patronize me, I don't answer to you. I do QUESTION your judgement, in spite of your apparent qualifications.

The cause is not, as you have said, "...obvious" to anybody, witness', prelim report, news accounts or whatever information we have at this time.

For instance:
It is a significant leap of faith to suggest that Roush was not familiar with the landing protocol and that is the ultimate cause of the crash.

What leads you to this conclusion? It's a simple question, still waiting an answer...

[Jerry Clayton]

Ernie

I have given you the directions to the required info for operating an aircraft into that airport during the air show---

I have tried to explain how the pilot must not have understood that procedure---

I have tried to explain that under the far's and that notam they are given specific directions to go around

I have tried to point out that the crew on this Beech Jet got way behind on the operation of there plane

I have tried to explain that they got into this situation because they did not go around

After the aircraft crashed, Jack Roush walked away so I guess it was a good landing---

I don't know if he got a helicopter ride or not___

You have said that you ride motorcycles--- if you are riding along the road to go get a six pack, and the light up ahead of you turns red, as you slow down and continue hoping it will turn green before you get there, you get so slow that the bike is hard to control, do you speed up a little to where your bike is stable or do you continue slowing down til you fall over????--remember, in an aircraft you can't stop, so putting you feet down isn't an option



Good night Ernie

[Excaliber]

It is difficult to believe (impossible frankly) Roush would not have familiarized himself with the landing protocol for such a heavily attended event. Especially in view of his history of air craft business ventures.

This assumption, is based on the premise that he MUST not have known because he did not follow procedure by doing a "go round". It ignores the possibilities that a go round, early or late, could NOT have been done as easily as has been suggested. There seems to be an issue of endangering himself or other air craft if a go round was attemped. This does not suggest he was unfamiliar with the procedure, but was unable to follow it. Because he got "behind"? Speculation at best, but if so, it warrants further speculation about WHY/HOW he got behind? That could have started with the "obvious" confusion in the control tower when THEY "got behind".

[Silverback51]

To my knowledge none of us were in the plane, or in the tower. We can argue until the cows come home, and it doesn't mean squat.

In about a year we will have access to the NTSB report. At that time we will know what really happened.

[TXBLU]

$10 says Mr. Roush was at fault here, and that the controller(s) also failed to recognize a problem with the pilot (Mr. Roush) understanding what was expected with his required specific approach rpocedures, possibly from a lack of experience operating that aircraft type in those conditions. Jack got behind the aircraft, overshot the turn to final, and failed to recover. This is merely specultion on my part, and in no way is meant to denigrate anyone's opinion or experience with aviation accidents, or to be inflamatory in any way.

I do think that a more rational analysis, and more respectful conversaition, would go a long way towards our collective understanding of what happened, and how that might have occured. Keeping an open mind about what we know, and don't know, would go a long way toward keeping this from spiraling down into a war of words and opinion based on speculation. I appreciate and encourage anyone with an opinion, based on aviation experience or not, to share that opinion with the rest of us.

This is interesting: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CEN10FA443&rpt=p

Eric

[Excaliber]

I thought this was also an interesting POD CAST on keeping the cockpit professional in all aspects.

"What you care about may predict if you'll crash".
http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast..._203099-1.html

A study of moral psychology. Do you care about the "pressure" of not screwing up the landing/take off's for others at a major event like KOSH? Or, are you strictly concerned with landing/take off of your OWN plane without regard to making other folks "wait"? Are you more concerned with getting their on time, or being pressured by your passengers to arrive on time? Are you thinking of how you can please someone else to the point where you are less concerned about the flight risk factors?

Something to think about when on a trip with your auto as well! Do you take uneccessary risks to "please" somebody or meet that deadline? Late for work, leads to taking more risk? Do you HAVE to beat that Mustang? The study showed those who were more focused on professional conduct in the cockpit and less focused on passengers, deadlines, frieght timing, etc. etc. were less likely to crash.

This could also apply to tower control, their already under a LOT of pressure with people waiting for clearance.

Sometimes it's not easy to deal with that passenger who is pressurizing you to hurry up, or the inconvience you may cause others by playing it safe.

[tcrist]

There is also competition with your fellow flying buddies (at least that is what I was told once by a couple of pilots).

There is competition about how close you can land to the start of the runway. How soon you can slow down and take the first exit and get to the taxiway.


I am not saying that it is right or wrong. I am just saying that it does happen. At least among friends or the pilots that keep their planes at the same airport.

[Excaliber]

I was out riding with some sport bikers the other day (whew those guys FAST) and I was feeling the pressure to keep up alright!

These were older guys, not young "organ donors". I noticed that they were careful about when and where to "open it up", they had limits they wouldn't cross. Reminded me of how I drive the Cobra on occasion, carefully choosing when and where, how far to push the envelope or not.

When one guy slowed (enough already) and let the pack go on ahead, I was like, whew, OK then, I'll hang with this guy!

[Jerry Clayton]

Ernie I want to apoligise for any thing that I have written that you took personally---

I value your contributions to this site and your down to earth real look at things. I appreciated you checking out where my top fueler was a few years ago and I have always looked forward to your input in any subject brought up here.
I did not mean to belittle motorcycle riders with the comment that you can just put your feet down. And then you post about the sport bike guys---bring out the comfort level and peer pressure angles. Your referance to the guy who slowed(enough already) was an example of where a pilot should pull up and go around---as you can't just slow up an aircraft and take it easier---you have to go faster and get out of there.

Now I'll let this rest until the NTSB finishes (maybe year to 18 months) and then we'll discuss there findings.

Jerry

[Paul F]

Very good Jerry. Let's keep speculation and opinions out of ALL COBRA TALK and move this thread to the lounge where it is appropriate to pick apart each others opinions.

Actually, I thought you two had a good discussion, making your points. This is perfect fodder for the Lounge. That's all part of the fun of the lounge. Being able to bring lively discussion about a topic, get to know how each other thinks, and continue to respect each other no matter how wrong their views are.