Narrative:

The incident occurred at the airshow in chandler, az, at approximately XA00 on oct/sat/96. WX was clear. Wind was from the northwest at approximately 8 KTS. I was flying in the ultra-light portion of the airshow called the manufacturer's showcase due to the size and speed of my hornet kitplane. This was the first time I ever entered or in any way participated in an airshow other than as a spectator. This was the second day in a row I was flying in the showcase. I had attended the daily briefing and the special briefing for the showcase on both days. I did not attend the morning ultralight briefing on that day since it was for the ultralights that intended to fly in the morning. On this day, there were 2 hornets that would be flying simultaneously during the showcase, mine and the plane belonging to a factory test pilot. Both of us had coordinated our maneuvers in advance to ensure we would achieve 180 degree separation in the 3000 ft-long 500 ft- wide pattern that was controled by the individual who gave the briefing and his crew. In the briefing I requested and received permission for each hornet pilot to execute a 360 degree turn at the end of the long, rectangular, l-hand pattern. 2 passes were to be made at a level not below 100 ft AGL. We were to land on the third pass. We took- off in formation on runway 30L with the factory pilot making a left 180 degree climbing turn at the 1500 ft mark (approximately 1/2 way down the pattern). I continued my climb out to the far end of the pattern, thus establishing our 180 degree separation. The remainder of the flight went as planned without incident. Or so I thought. Upon landing I was approached by a woman wearing an insignia designating some official capacity. She informed me that we needed 'to observe the 500 ft limit and that the FAA was very serious about it.' I acknowledged and thanked her. I was then confronted by 2 men from the FAA, mr a and mr B. I met mr a the previous day after my flight when he asked to see my license and other 'paperwork.' this was provided to his satisfaction. At that point I asked mr a, 'did I do anything wrong?' his response was, 'no, just doing my job.' I asked a second time since he did not sound very convincing. I said, 'are you sure there is nothing wrong? I don't want to receive a letter in 2 weeks that says 'you're in trouble'!' his response again was, 'no, I am just doing my job.' we then proceeded with some brief small talk as we walked over to my plane. He seemed friendly and sincere. After he left, my colleagues educated me on what they called 'ramp checks,' saying that I had just experienced one. I was told by media relations for the event, on the following day after my second meeting with mr a and mr B, that the FAA said specifically that there would be no ramp checks at the event. Mr C introduced himself and said that he was from the FAA. I told him that I had just received a verbal reprimand from the airshow official. He responded gruffly, 'you're going to get a lot more than that.' 'let me see your license,' he demanded. I showed him my documentation which I had to retrieve from my flight pack in the truck. There were 2 witnesses present as he recorded data in his spiral notebook. No one spoke. When he was done he informed me that I needed to read the FARS regarding angle of bank and angle of attack, since he inferred I had exceeded them during my factory showcase flight. He also said I had made a turn in front of the crowd and that I had directed the energy of my aircraft at the crowd. He also stated that I did not maintain a 500 ft separation between my aircraft and the crowd. Finally he said, 'we came out here and talked to you yesterday and it didn't do any good.' with his permission I responded with the explanation that I performed the same maneuvers as the previous day with the exception of the 360 degree turns. I said that I had received permission to make those turns by the people giving the briefing. His response was, 'they are not authority/authorized to give that permission.' as a first- timer to an airshow I did not know this. I also informed him that when mr a visited me the previous day, he said nothing to me about improper flight, despite my pointed queries. Mr C's response was, 'well, you should have surmised that we were out here watching you.' I said nothing and neither did anyone else. After several more mins of conversation I asked if I might know the consequences of my actions. Mr C informed me that he would be sending me a letter and I would be given a chance to respond. Then it would be up to the FAA to decide what would happen next. Mr C then said something to the effect that the FAA is not out to give people a hard time. Then he and mr B left. I immediately went to the briefing room to see the briefer and inform him of what had happened. My intention was to ensure all other pilots were aware of the items mr C had spoken of in order to avoid further incidents. Mr D was very surprised. He was on the ground during my flight and he advised me that he had observed no inappropriate maneuvers nor any actions on my part that would warrant such a response from the FAA. I also informed mr east (the ultralight briefer) and mr F, another official that the pattern they were describing for the morning ultralight flight as well as the afternoon ultralight manufacturer's showcase did not meet the FAA's 500 ft crowd separation requirements. They were very surprised. Mr D and I later confirmed that the distance from the crowd line (on the edge of the taxiway) to the center of runway 30L was 575 ft. I left at that point and have no idea what actions were taken. I was however, later informed that the pattern remained essentially the same the following day. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he had been sent an FAA letter of investigation to which he did respond. The final result was a letter of warning was issued to him which will be on file for 2 yrs in his pilot records. He stated that he has learned a lot from this experience and will be helping with future air shows with the ultralight demonstrations. He will try to assure that the FAA airshow waiver provisions are known and understood prior to the show demonstrations.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF A ROBERT'S HORNET ULTRALIGHT FAILED TO ADHERE TO THE AIR SHOW LIMITATION PROVISIONS BY EXCEEDING THE BANK PITCH AND FLYING TOWARD THE SPECTATORS RESULTING IN AN FAA WARNING LETTER IN HIS PLT RECORDS.

Narrative: THE INCIDENT OCCURRED AT THE AIRSHOW IN CHANDLER, AZ, AT APPROX XA00 ON OCT/SAT/96. WX WAS CLR. WIND WAS FROM THE NW AT APPROX 8 KTS. I WAS FLYING IN THE ULTRA-LIGHT PORTION OF THE AIRSHOW CALLED THE MANUFACTURER'S SHOWCASE DUE TO THE SIZE AND SPD OF MY HORNET KITPLANE. THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME I EVER ENTERED OR IN ANY WAY PARTICIPATED IN AN AIRSHOW OTHER THAN AS A SPECTATOR. THIS WAS THE SECOND DAY IN A ROW I WAS FLYING IN THE SHOWCASE. I HAD ATTENDED THE DAILY BRIEFING AND THE SPECIAL BRIEFING FOR THE SHOWCASE ON BOTH DAYS. I DID NOT ATTEND THE MORNING ULTRALIGHT BRIEFING ON THAT DAY SINCE IT WAS FOR THE ULTRALIGHTS THAT INTENDED TO FLY IN THE MORNING. ON THIS DAY, THERE WERE 2 HORNETS THAT WOULD BE FLYING SIMULTANEOUSLY DURING THE SHOWCASE, MINE AND THE PLANE BELONGING TO A FACTORY TEST PLT. BOTH OF US HAD COORDINATED OUR MANEUVERS IN ADVANCE TO ENSURE WE WOULD ACHIEVE 180 DEG SEPARATION IN THE 3000 FT-LONG 500 FT- WIDE PATTERN THAT WAS CTLED BY THE INDIVIDUAL WHO GAVE THE BRIEFING AND HIS CREW. IN THE BRIEFING I REQUESTED AND RECEIVED PERMISSION FOR EACH HORNET PLT TO EXECUTE A 360 DEG TURN AT THE END OF THE LONG, RECTANGULAR, L-HAND PATTERN. 2 PASSES WERE TO BE MADE AT A LEVEL NOT BELOW 100 FT AGL. WE WERE TO LAND ON THE THIRD PASS. WE TOOK- OFF IN FORMATION ON RWY 30L WITH THE FACTORY PLT MAKING A L 180 DEG CLBING TURN AT THE 1500 FT MARK (APPROX 1/2 WAY DOWN THE PATTERN). I CONTINUED MY CLBOUT TO THE FAR END OF THE PATTERN, THUS ESTABLISHING OUR 180 DEG SEPARATION. THE REMAINDER OF THE FLT WENT AS PLANNED WITHOUT INCIDENT. OR SO I THOUGHT. UPON LNDG I WAS APCHED BY A WOMAN WEARING AN INSIGNIA DESIGNATING SOME OFFICIAL CAPACITY. SHE INFORMED ME THAT WE NEEDED 'TO OBSERVE THE 500 FT LIMIT AND THAT THE FAA WAS VERY SERIOUS ABOUT IT.' I ACKNOWLEDGED AND THANKED HER. I WAS THEN CONFRONTED BY 2 MEN FROM THE FAA, MR A AND MR B. I MET MR A THE PREVIOUS DAY AFTER MY FLT WHEN HE ASKED TO SEE MY LICENSE AND OTHER 'PAPERWORK.' THIS WAS PROVIDED TO HIS SATISFACTION. AT THAT POINT I ASKED MR A, 'DID I DO ANYTHING WRONG?' HIS RESPONSE WAS, 'NO, JUST DOING MY JOB.' I ASKED A SECOND TIME SINCE HE DID NOT SOUND VERY CONVINCING. I SAID, 'ARE YOU SURE THERE IS NOTHING WRONG? I DON'T WANT TO RECEIVE A LETTER IN 2 WKS THAT SAYS 'YOU'RE IN TROUBLE'!' HIS RESPONSE AGAIN WAS, 'NO, I AM JUST DOING MY JOB.' WE THEN PROCEEDED WITH SOME BRIEF SMALL TALK AS WE WALKED OVER TO MY PLANE. HE SEEMED FRIENDLY AND SINCERE. AFTER HE LEFT, MY COLLEAGUES EDUCATED ME ON WHAT THEY CALLED 'RAMP CHKS,' SAYING THAT I HAD JUST EXPERIENCED ONE. I WAS TOLD BY MEDIA RELATIONS FOR THE EVENT, ON THE FOLLOWING DAY AFTER MY SECOND MEETING WITH MR A AND MR B, THAT THE FAA SAID SPECIFICALLY THAT THERE WOULD BE NO RAMP CHKS AT THE EVENT. MR C INTRODUCED HIMSELF AND SAID THAT HE WAS FROM THE FAA. I TOLD HIM THAT I HAD JUST RECEIVED A VERBAL REPRIMAND FROM THE AIRSHOW OFFICIAL. HE RESPONDED GRUFFLY, 'YOU'RE GOING TO GET A LOT MORE THAN THAT.' 'LET ME SEE YOUR LICENSE,' HE DEMANDED. I SHOWED HIM MY DOCUMENTATION WHICH I HAD TO RETRIEVE FROM MY FLT PACK IN THE TRUCK. THERE WERE 2 WITNESSES PRESENT AS HE RECORDED DATA IN HIS SPIRAL NOTEBOOK. NO ONE SPOKE. WHEN HE WAS DONE HE INFORMED ME THAT I NEEDED TO READ THE FARS REGARDING ANGLE OF BANK AND ANGLE OF ATTACK, SINCE HE INFERRED I HAD EXCEEDED THEM DURING MY FACTORY SHOWCASE FLT. HE ALSO SAID I HAD MADE A TURN IN FRONT OF THE CROWD AND THAT I HAD DIRECTED THE ENERGY OF MY ACFT AT THE CROWD. HE ALSO STATED THAT I DID NOT MAINTAIN A 500 FT SEPARATION BTWN MY ACFT AND THE CROWD. FINALLY HE SAID, 'WE CAME OUT HERE AND TALKED TO YOU YESTERDAY AND IT DIDN'T DO ANY GOOD.' WITH HIS PERMISSION I RESPONDED WITH THE EXPLANATION THAT I PERFORMED THE SAME MANEUVERS AS THE PREVIOUS DAY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE 360 DEG TURNS. I SAID THAT I HAD RECEIVED PERMISSION TO MAKE THOSE TURNS BY THE PEOPLE GIVING THE BRIEFING. HIS RESPONSE WAS, 'THEY ARE NOT AUTH TO GIVE THAT PERMISSION.' AS A FIRST- TIMER TO AN AIRSHOW I DID NOT KNOW THIS. I ALSO INFORMED HIM THAT WHEN MR A VISITED ME THE PREVIOUS DAY, HE SAID NOTHING TO ME ABOUT IMPROPER FLT, DESPITE MY POINTED QUERIES. MR C'S RESPONSE WAS, 'WELL, YOU SHOULD HAVE SURMISED THAT WE WERE OUT HERE WATCHING YOU.' I SAID NOTHING AND NEITHER DID ANYONE ELSE. AFTER SEVERAL MORE MINS OF CONVERSATION I ASKED IF I MIGHT KNOW THE CONSEQUENCES OF MY ACTIONS. MR C INFORMED ME THAT HE WOULD BE SENDING ME A LETTER AND I WOULD BE GIVEN A CHANCE TO RESPOND. THEN IT WOULD BE UP TO THE FAA TO DECIDE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN NEXT. MR C THEN SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT THE FAA IS NOT OUT TO GIVE PEOPLE A HARD TIME. THEN HE AND MR B LEFT. I IMMEDIATELY WENT TO THE BRIEFING ROOM TO SEE THE BRIEFER AND INFORM HIM OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED. MY INTENTION WAS TO ENSURE ALL OTHER PLTS WERE AWARE OF THE ITEMS MR C HAD SPOKEN OF IN ORDER TO AVOID FURTHER INCIDENTS. MR D WAS VERY SURPRISED. HE WAS ON THE GND DURING MY FLT AND HE ADVISED ME THAT HE HAD OBSERVED NO INAPPROPRIATE MANEUVERS NOR ANY ACTIONS ON MY PART THAT WOULD WARRANT SUCH A RESPONSE FROM THE FAA. I ALSO INFORMED MR E (THE ULTRALIGHT BRIEFER) AND MR F, ANOTHER OFFICIAL THAT THE PATTERN THEY WERE DESCRIBING FOR THE MORNING ULTRALIGHT FLT AS WELL AS THE AFTERNOON ULTRALIGHT MANUFACTURER'S SHOWCASE DID NOT MEET THE FAA'S 500 FT CROWD SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS. THEY WERE VERY SURPRISED. MR D AND I LATER CONFIRMED THAT THE DISTANCE FROM THE CROWD LINE (ON THE EDGE OF THE TXWY) TO THE CTR OF RWY 30L WAS 575 FT. I LEFT AT THAT POINT AND HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ACTIONS WERE TAKEN. I WAS HOWEVER, LATER INFORMED THAT THE PATTERN REMAINED ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THE FOLLOWING DAY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE HAD BEEN SENT AN FAA LETTER OF INVESTIGATION TO WHICH HE DID RESPOND. THE FINAL RESULT WAS A LETTER OF WARNING WAS ISSUED TO HIM WHICH WILL BE ON FILE FOR 2 YRS IN HIS PLT RECORDS. HE STATED THAT HE HAS LEARNED A LOT FROM THIS EXPERIENCE AND WILL BE HELPING WITH FUTURE AIR SHOWS WITH THE ULTRALIGHT DEMONSTRATIONS. HE WILL TRY TO ASSURE THAT THE FAA AIRSHOW WAIVER PROVISIONS ARE KNOWN AND UNDERSTOOD PRIOR TO THE SHOW DEMONSTRATIONS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.