Dayton airshow crash, pilot and wing walker killed.

[NutLoose]

Not good judging by the photos

Dayton Air Show: Pilot, stunt woman killed in crash | www.whiotv.com (http://www.whiotv.com/news/news/local/wing-walkers-plane-crashes-at-dayton-air-show/nYSBY/)

[Loose rivets]

The announcer's last words bring a chill

Warning. It's heartrending to see.


Wing Walker double winged Plane Crashes At Dayton Ohio Air Show - 22 June 2013 - YouTube

[Eboy]

This video shows smoke from the plane just before the crash

Extended: Wing walker Jane Wicker dies after Dayton plane crash - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHJJtqsw__o&feature=youtu.be)

[barit1]

Smoke is probably a transient rich mixture while rolling to negative G. I believe that is normal for the R-985 w/ a "G" valve in the carburetor.

To me he looks like pretty low airspeed entering the roll, he recognized IAS falling off, but started his rollout too late.

[Flying Binghi]

Here's an interview with her -
Jane Wicker: A life in flight (http://www.wdtn.com/dpp/news/local/montgomery/jane-wicker-a-life-on-the-wing#.UcZWMocaySM)

[Pilot DAR]

The outcome is occasionally much less good when someone flying a plane says "watch this". Audiences still pay money to watch someone defy death, and the defying does not always work. As long as audiences will pay, someone will fly. A problem is that now some of those paying people have to explain some unpleasant things to the kids they took to watch.

Airshow pilots will fly lower and slower, and when they cannot maintain control of the aircraft, they have nowhere to go to allow recovery. I cannot comment on whether or not our society needs people out walking in wings, or whether that aircraft was designed to do fly in that configuration. But, our society does not need planes being flown so low and slow, or maneuvered unusually there, that there is no room for recovery following a loss of control. That makes every other pilot seem careless to non aviation people, and again we pilots have a poor stigma to try to distance ourselves from.....

[Cows getting bigger]

Very sad. Picking up on DAR, I was always taught to give myself options at as many stages of flight as possible.

[Onceapilot]

Is it just the editing or, did it take a while before the fire engine got there?

OAP

[barit1]

One interview says equipment was on site within 30 seconds.

Ancient saying: "You cannot beat the lowest altitude record, but only tie it."

[Bralo20]

When you look at the movie mentioned in the 3rd post: Extended: Wing walker Jane Wicker dies after Dayton plane crash - YouTube

You'll notice that right at the point when the plane dives to the ground the left elevator moves direction while the right one remains horizontal. (second 9 to 10 in the movie).

[foxmoth]

Could not see that properly, not sure of the setup on this aircraft, but certainly on a Tiger Moth the differential ailerons are such that the up going aileron moves a lot while the down going one hardly moves at all - could it be that?

[Armchairflyer]

Doesn't a person sitting on the wing (even if it's just one of two in a biplane) massively disturb the airflow on that side? To my amateur eyes it looks like a sudden wing drop on the side with the wing-walker (on the wingtip, too), obviously with no chance of recovery at that height, not any technical problem.

And of course, first and foremost, it looks harrowing :-( At least it was apparently all over very quickly.

[Monocock]

To my amateur eyes it looks like a sudden wing drop on the side with the wing-walker (on the wingtip, too), obviously with no chance of recovery at that height, not any technical problem.

You've chosen a superb and appropriate user name. :ok:

[Pilot DAR]

I don't see it.

I think this was a case of contaminated airfoil stalling locally, resulting in a spin entry. The contamination was a person.

[smarthawke]

The wing walker caused the spin entry? One presumes that it wouldn't have been the first time the manoeuvre had been performed so why this time?

Looking at other videos from further down the flight line, the roll ended with the aircraft off the display line and heading towards the crowd line. It then (to me) appears to begin to head back to the display line and flicks out.

Very sad result.

[Armchairflyer]

The wing walker caused the spin entry? One presumes that it wouldn't have been the first time the manoeuvre had been performed so why this time?As in other and less public cases, some knots airspeed less than usual would probably be enough for the very sad result.

[Bralo20]

I guess it could have been due the angle of the filming:

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5528/9118014625_3505bdc7d2_b.jpg

Half a second to a second later:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3733/9118014735_bae5970092_b.jpg

Didn't notice at first but in the same timespan the direction of the aileron of the leftside wing has changed also.

[foxmoth]

Now I see the point, was looking at aileron not elevator, in spite of what was posted!

[Pittsextra]

adverse yaw.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

DAR has it. The second video in this thread (discounting the withdrawn one) clearly shows a sudden stall of the wings with the person on, and resultant roll into the ground.

A combination of high angle of attack and disturbed airflow caused by the person. As has been said, the pilot would have been aware he was running out of energy, but had absolutely nowhere to go.

[FlyingOfficerKite]

What about health and safety issues?

Surely there must be a point when, no matter how thrilling the spectacle is and no matter how daring the participant may be, the authorities say enough is enough.

Not long since another Stearman crashed in the US with a wingwalker on board and a man fell to his death carrying out a stunt from an aircraft to a helicopter.

Whilst these accidents all occurred in the US, would they (apart from 'normal' wingwalking) be sanctioned by the UK CAA?

FOK

[Dragon2]

The Stearman does not stall or spin - it dives into the ground because the pilot commands up elevator and reverses the roll. He either does this to veer away from the crowd he is about to fly into, knowing he will die either way, or as a last ditch effort to roll erect and being a bit overhasty with the elevator (I think blind panic might be a better word for this scenario)

Be careful of gauging the elevator angle by looking at the proximal end- the cutouts for the rudder give an erroneous perception- rather look at the horns on the distal end.

There is no significant forward elevator from the moment he rolls inverted, despite his obvious descending, and he doesn't even get completely inverted, so this is an obvious case of control problems, most likely fouled and I will hazard a flyer at the front seatstraps or a camera coming loose passing zero G's and preventing forward stick movement.

[Pittsextra]

you'd think he'd have already been trimmed for zero g??

[IFMU]

Dragon2,
Seemed like the nose came up just before the roll. If you are slow and descending inverted, what will pushing the stick forward do? I would think it would stall. The left wing, in a left roll and at negative G would have had more AOA because of aileron displacement. If it snapped I would expect it to go in the direction it did. Not sure I understand the comment about front seat passengers and cameras. A third passenger on an acrobatic demonstration flight? Loose cameras in the same? Seems odd to me.
Bryan

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The assymetric drag and weight would exacerbate the airflow disturbance - all leading to a propensity for the wings on the side the wing walker is on to stall.

As he rolls inverted it seems he realises as the ground ahead comes into view that he is too low and pushes forward to climb, stalling the wings on one side. The aeroplane doesn't actually achieve stabilised inverted flight, as it stalls before he's even got the wings level from the half-roll-to-inverted and flicks the other way into the ground. It quite distinctly 'lets go' in that video - autorotation into a spin (assymetric stall).

[MOREOIL]

Initially I thought it looked like a stalled wing, but on frame by frame viewing it appears he never established himself in stable inverted flight, was low and descending when he tries to reverse the roll and Regain erect flight. The aircraft responds as you would expect from the position of the rudder/elevator/ailerons at all times, I am afraid he appears to fly it into the ground, perhaps his harness. Was loose or he had other issues, no doubt the many videos of the incident will provide good evidence for any lessons to be gained from this terrible accident.
Coincidently, I flew I flew a stearman with my partner on the wing for the first time, less than two weeks ago,
MOREOIL

[englishal]

Pilot incapacitation?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I very much doubt it's a deliberate roll reversal. The aeroplane does not roll axially in that final fatal roll, but around a point outboard of the fuselage on the side that didn't stall, and at the same time descends into the ground. All point (it seems to me) to flow breakaway (stall), on the side where the wing walker is, following the pitch-up.

[MOREOIL]

Shaggy, pause the video and you can see the ailerons reverse the roll, as an initial guess, I would say as he rolls inverted the nose is not high enough, he notices the sink before reaching wings level, turning slightly to crowd, the forward stick he puts in to raise the nose increases the turn to crowd as well, so he reverses the roll, gently to keep the wing walker in place, on the inverted side of knife edge he puts in back stick , no or little top rudder, and this finally pitches it down. There is a similar end to a slow roll in a Texan on YouTube somewhere, same result. If the wing had stalled I would have expected to see aileron instinctively go contra roll. But the many videos will provide most of the answers I expect.
MOREOIL

[vihai]

http://www.toledoblade.com/image/2013/06/22/800x_b1_cCM_z/Wing-walker-Jane-Wicker-46.jpg

This picture might be relevant

[SFCC]

Very relevant indeed. No stall at any point.
Lower and undoubtably slower than he had planned, but at no point did the aeroplane stall :confused:

[007helicopter]

I flew I flew a stearman with my partner on the wing for the first time, less than two weeks ago,
MOREOIL

A genuine question MOREOIL, why do you and your partner do it?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

http://www.toledoblade.com/image/201...-Wicker-46.jpg

This picture might be relevant

I don't think so. If you watch the vid there is no point in final couple of seconds that she waves to the crowd while inverted. There's a brief 'both hands above her head' as she realises after the break to a left roll from a right roll that they are going in.

The vid is too indistinct to see the ailerons. It does roll around the wings opposite side to the walker rather than axially around the fuselage in that final fatal roll, and it does pitch down into the ground as it rolls. Looks clear as day to be an assymetrric stall/ incipient flick to me.

[Dragon2]

If anyone still has questions about my post above, please ask or even PM me, and I will try to explain in more detail - I am quite open to friendly debate and will do my best to explain the technical stuff to anyone with an eager mind. Shaggy it seems you are at a disadvantage not having access to some of the newer high definition footage which clearly shows the control positions, PM me I will try to help by sending you some relevant links and snapshots. I would've thought along similar lines if I hadn't seen the good videos.

[MOREOIL]

007H, an astonishing number of people have wing walking, strapped to a rig, on their bucket list, or to celebrate retiring or something, admit I don't fancy being on the wing myself but will probably try it soon. I fly because the extra effort required challenges me, the focus on extra safety , constantly assessing almost everything, engine,height,speed, terrain,time,walker body language,wind, gentle control inputs, lifts the usual workload to levels I aspire to.
Shaggy, there are more than one videos on YouTube at the moment, it's harrowing stuff but lessons to be learned from pause frame viewing, have a look at T6 barrel roll pilot dies too, sobering stuff for those rolling low
MOREOIL

[Dragon2]

englishal Pilot: incapacitation?
Nope the pilot gives meaningful control inputs right until the very end. The only complication to this is his inability to give stick forward elevator while inverted, but even during this he is still giving other meaningful inputs. No incapacitation.

IFMU:Not sure I understand the comment about front seat passengers and cameras A significant number of control problems in aerobatic flight result from loose objects in the cockpit fouling the controls. This is especially so in a vacated cockpit like the one in the front of this Stearman, where there is no-one to police any objects gone walkabout. Common guilty parties are lapstraps that haven't been secured properly, lasooing the stick or the buckle getting wedged in against the stick. More and more today we see GOPRO cameras (and others) carried onboard to take some of the onboard views of this show you will see from previous shows, so it is possible they could have broken loose and done the obstructing. Bear in mind that the instant this first roll reaches 90degrees the cockpit transitions through roughly zero-G and this is when objects tend to go float about and get into trouble, so the timing fits perfectly. It has happened many times before. Something catastrophically prevented this pilot from applying significant forward stick while inverted resulting in the cascade that caused the deaths.

[SpannerInTheWerks]

There is a good HD 14 minute video on YouTube filmed in 2011 showing the whole display by Jane Wicker, with her ex-husband flying the Stearman.

If you compare that video with the crash sequence, personally I don't think there is any other conclusion than that suggested by Dragon 2: it dives into the ground because the pilot commands up elevator and reverses the roll. He either does this to veer away from the crowd he is about to fly into, knowing he will die either way, or as a last ditch effort to roll erect and being a bit overhasty with the elevator (I think blind panic might be a better word for this scenario).

No complicated aerodynamic effects, no flick roll - they'd done this hundreds of times - just they were lower and (maybe) slower and after 23 years of wing walking Jane's luck ran out.

SITW :-(

[Ditchdigger]

Something catastrophically prevented this pilot from applying significant forward stick while inverted resulting in the cascade that caused the deaths.

Perhaps knowing the fact that too abrupt a maneuver would almost certainly have caused Ms. Wicker to fall from the wing was a contributing factor?

[airlinersinflight]

She actually has a safety line which prevents her from falling off. I think has a hook on the end which she attaches to the plane when she's in position. It's mentioned in a description of her gear on a website. If you look at close up pics of her on the wing you can see her holding it with her left hand.

[what next]

She actually has a safety line which prevents her from falling off.

In the interview they took shortly before the flight she said that she's one of the few wingwalkers who fly without a safetly line!

[airlinersinflight]

Here is an extremely clear pic taken just before the crash. You can clearly see that the elevator is deflected downward significantly and you can even see the pilot's face.

http://jto.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/wn20130624a6a.jpg

[airlinersinflight]

Its not like a typical safety line. I believe its just a hook with a short rope that's attached to her belt. I believe she can only use it when she's in a stationary position.

Here's her equipment run-down. She says here that she uses it when she's dangling from the wing.

http://media.cleveland.com/plain_dealer_metro/photo/wingwalkjpg-1dba03510aabf968.jpg

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Perhaps knowing the fact that too abrupt a maneuver would almost certainly have caused Ms. Wicker to fall from the wing was a contributing factor?

Yes, i think that's a valid point and probably explains the pilot's indecision which ultimately led to the accident. He just ran out of options - couldn't roll as planned, couldn't reverse the roll as it might have caused issues for Ms Wicker and if he'd continued inverted (was that possible!) it would have also confused Ms Wicker and may have led to problems.

By the time he'd considered (and tried) the possibilities it was just too late.

Insofar as the safety line is concerned that (and other) questions are answered under FAQ on her website.

Another point is that she always stated that she used the 3:1 rule - 3 points of contact (pointed out on both the website and during the 14 minute video). however there are times during her routine when she only had two points of contact, such as when hanging upside down from the wing.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Anyone know if and where an accident report will be published?

[IFMU]

Ultimately the report will end up here:
N T S B - Aviation Accidents - Index of Months (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/month.aspx)
The reports are listed in the month of the accident. There is also a search function for all the reports in the database. The NTSB generally does a short report within a month and the detailed analysis within 6-12 months.

Bryan

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Thanks Bryan. I'll be interested to read it.

[Ridger]

Sad news. Whatever the cause, lack of height certainly didn't help matters. I've never understood why civvy display aircraft are flown so low - surely 500' would be plenty low enough for appropriate manouvres and offer at least some margin if something (notwithstanding mechanical failure) doesn't go to plan. I understand Germany has applied a 500' deck height, would be interesting to know if it has made any change to accident rates.

[JohnDixson]

Ridger makes a point. A current example: minimum altitude at the Paris Airshow for Presentation Flights is either 330ft or 500ft, depending on the approval.

[maxred]

Ridger makes a point. A current example: minimum altitude at the Paris Airshow for Presentation Flights is either 330ft or 500ft, depending on the approval

There is a real issue here, and truth is, it has always been there.

Air display participants strive to make the show ever more spectacular, ever more 'daredevil', ever lower, ever faster, ever more extreme. All to attract the watching Joe Public, away from the Ice Cream vendor, who, in general, are oblivious to the courage/difficulty,dangers, that the show participants can put themselves in. More and more, the ground attrcations, where the shows make the money, seem to be the centre, with the air displays almost, a side event.

I remember some years back, having done a display, I landed, and asked my wife what she had thought of it? Sorry we missed it, kids were in a ground based sim. Then, to add insult to injury, when do the fast jets arrive, now they are 'real' aeroplanes!

Whether we like it or not, display pilots will always compete against the ice cream vendor, and I am no longer sure that putting lives in danger with ever lower routines, is actually worth it.

And no disrespect to the appalling loss of life in this incident, where a thoroughly professional show, ended in tragedy.

[barit1]

I heard the Dayton show announcer (Rob Reider) interviewed yesterday, and he gave a most lucid description of airshow clearance progression. The pilot must first demonstrate his routine using a "floor" of 500 feet AGL. After several shows under this restriction, the pilot requalifies with a 250 foot floor, and finally a "no restrictions" floor.

Regarding the likely cause of the accident, I'm inclined to go with Dragon2 in post #36, supported by airlinersinflight's photo; There is no forward stick at the very moment I would expect it. My father taught aerobatics in WWII, and the inspection for loose or foreign objects was always a big safety stress.

[mark one eyeball]

It was a ridiculous height to perform this manoeuvre

[Wizofoz]

Here is an extremely clear pic taken just before the crash. You can clearly see that the elevator is deflected downward significantly and you can even see the pilot's face.

http://jto.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-conte...0130624a6a.jpg

"downwards" relative to the ground, which is indeed "Up" elevator, and Aileron deflected to roll AWAY from the horizontal- It does indeed seem he was trying to roll up-right after botching the roll to inverted.

[JEM60]

I have attended many airshows over many years, and was a PPL.
Sadly. I have witnessed 11 crashes and 9 fatalities. Very low flying at displays has always been a great concern to me as a spectator. In this country, England that is, I have always understood that there is a floor to display flying, and it is never lower than 50 feet for the most experienced pilot, with the highest Display Rating. Less experienced get a higher 'floor'. I attended Dayton Airshow twice, and Oshkosh 6 times over the years, and the extremely low altitude flown on MANY occasions by airshow pilots in the States has always been a worry to me. The attitude seems to be that the lower you fly, the better you are, all part of the American macho image, I guess. All I can say is that seeing this extreme low flying scares the hell out of me, I get no pleasure from it, it would be no less spectacular if flown 20 or 50 feet higher, and if that were the case, quite a few airshow pilots that I used to see would still be around today!. Come on, U.S.A. put a minimum height for ALL displays, and stop these unnecessary disaster scenarios, which occur far, far too often.

[Pittsextra]

Obviously at some point hitting the ground is going to hurt so in that context height becomes a factor but the video doesn't exactly show the best of control regardless of height. Mishandling the aircraft is a greater cause of accidents.

You can't really blame airshow organisers after all at what point do you make the call that the pilot is going to be ok? For instance you've had situations with (for example) a well respected BAe test pilot making mistakes with a humble barrel roll or an Italian mil. helicopter pilot make error with a wingover.

[foxmoth]

I certainly do not think low in itself is the dangerous bit, it is the manoeuvres you are doing at these heights that matter- even I could fly down a display line erect at 5' and in say an Extra, inverted at 50' with no problem, it is when you are manoeuvring at these heights that the difficulties arise, and certainly I would have thought rolling a Stearman at this height, with the added complication of someone on the wing, very dubious.:=

[barit1]

I witnessed a near-crash 50+ years ago at an early EAA meet at Rockford IL. It was a very pretty homebuilt biplane, maybe 3/4 the size of a Stearman, and he entered a spin at what seemed a suicidal altitude. After about 3 turns he accomplished a very dicey recovery over a depression between two runways. He was actually below the runways, hanging on the prop, virtually begging for a secondary stall. :ugh:

I had a lot more respect for the airplane than for the pilot. :uhoh:

[IFMU]

Can be found here:
CEN13FA274 (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130513X32942&key=1)

Bryan

[foxmoth]

Well that tells us nothing new.

[IFMU]

Sure, it tells us the investigators read slowly, and haven't gotten through the whole thread yet! Final report takes 6-12 months.
Bryan

[foxmoth]

Sure, it tells us the investigators read slowly,

As said - tells us nothing NEW:p

[shortstripper]

I agree with Foxmoth with regard to low flight at airshows.

I remember reading an article by Neil Williams where he said a low pass at high speed then zoom climb whilst rolling looked spectacular is a very safe manoeuvre, whereas a slow roll down low doesn't really look that exciting to a the general public, but is very dangerous for the pilot

SS

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

And that supreme air show pilot who happily is still with us, Brian Lecomber, one said some wise words about pull-outs from show manouvres. He advised planning it so you could pull out easily at 50 feet, then fly it on down to much lower so it looks like you pulled out at 5 feet. Pilots who actually pull out very low soon change.... sometimes into very thin very spread-out pilots!

[BEagle]

....a slow roll down low doesn't really look that exciting to a the general public, but is very dangerous for the pilot.

A properly executed low-level slow roll is a very demanding manoeuvre and one which takes considerable skill to accomplish.

Whereas a so-called 'victory roll' by a not-entirely-skilled pilot is a real killer.

Approach the aerodrome at speed, perhaps with the aeroplane trimmed to that speed. Then a slight climb (it will start to decelerate) and whang the control column fully over. Aileron drag and drag induced by the roll will cause further deceleration. The aircraft will be out of trim and unless the pitch is properly controlled, will cease climbing. When inverted, it will probably seem OK to the pilot who probably hasn't flown inverted close to the ground before, but in reality the pitch attitude will be insufficient and the aircraft will be descending - even more so if the engine doesn't like negative G. At the 3/4 point, the pilot will suddenly realise that he is far lower than he intended to be and is now descending. But the aircraft is so far out of trim that most of the available elevator deflexion is needed just to maintain whatever pitch attitude he's found himself in....leaving little if any further rearward control column movement available to regain level flight in the height available.

With the predicatable and sadly inevitable result.

[foxmoth]

As I think I stated in a thread some time ago, no one should even think about low level aeros until they have been frightened by something they have done and sorted out at height. It is only then that you realise how things can go wrong and gives you the respect when you start working your display height down.:mad: