Dallas air show crash

[moosepileit]

Do not confuse or conflate trained, serial processing with the concept of multitasking.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Originally Posted by 9 lives

Is a busy air traffic controller multi tasking?

YES.

I kept the answer simple so as not to saturate you.

[finestkind]

Originally Posted by 9 lives

Is a busy air traffic controller multi tasking? Or just performing one task - maintaining safe air traffic flow? I think you'd find that air traffic controllers, while on duty, are very insulated from distraction, and any multi tasking. Even sitting beside one comes with limitations for the sitter.

On the other hand, a pilot, flying an advanced fast airplane, is tasked doing that. Then that pilot is thinking about maneuvering into formation with another aircraft, another task with constantly changing parameters, and [hopefully] considering his own traffic separation - many distinct tasks - 'cause he has to look all over the ski for them, rather than at one radar display.

I entertain the notion that the Air Cobra pilot was task saturated, in a very complex situation, and could not keep all the balls in the air. I have had a few occasions in an uncontrolled airport environment where non conforming traffic was too much to mentally track, while I was also PIC, training a pilot new to the type, who was flying. I chose to overshoot a visual approach, and reorient myself with the traffic, before attempting another approach.

In my opinion, the set up of this flying display was a major Swiss cheese hole toward task saturation, and needlessly so. As said, great display antique airplanes, but not in a highly complex multi plane formation in turns. Just fly them one after another across in front of the spectators - and, then they can also enjoy the distinct sound from each one too!

Task saturation does cause diminishing SA. But rejoining a formation and keeping visual with others is far from task saturation. Basic rejoining in assessing closure rate etc becomes second nature with experience as does flying the aircraft without conscious thought. Was he task saturated or just target focused to the detriment of SA.

[MechEngr]

Is rejoining to the center of a large formation while making a relatively hard maneuver a typical activity?

I think the P-63 pilot believed he wouldn't be told to close up on the P-51 unless the path was clear for him to do so.

[GeeRam]

Originally Posted by MechEngr

I think the P-63 pilot believed he wouldn't be told to close up on the P-51 unless the path was clear for him to do so.

I agree.

[Concours77]

Originally Posted by uxb99

Hearing rumours (only rumours) that B17 Texas Raiders may have got into difficulties at an air show.
If this is the case hope all are safe.

Originally Posted by GeeRam

I agree.

Respectfully I disagree. This is not IMC. It is see and be seen. Firstly, the Air boss did not "clear" the Bell. Each pilot must maintain separation. Because the P63 was out of position, it is apparent the pilot pushed a position that was risky, and turned out critical, then fatal.

I don't believe the Bell pilot assumed external "permission" of any kind...

As to "visibility" of the KingCobra. The engine is behind the pilot. The pilot sits six feet closer to the leading edge of the wing, and the snout, not concealing a massive motor, is slimmer than other front engined fighters....

That leaves the clunky framework of the canopy, inferring a discussion to be had...

[Bill Macgillivray]

I was always taught (and I taught) that joining up with another aircraft was always from below and visual?

[NutLoose]

Latest one is did it hit a drone, see the link.

https://eurasiantimes.com/mid-air-ho...cobra-collide/

[megan]

Don't think I'd take too much notice of that Nut, aircraft "stalled" and he was trying to "restart the engine". I think they need a new "expert".

[treadigraph]

The video clip appeared elsewhere a few days ago; it was pointed out that an aerial survey C310 was operating at 5000' on an east/west leg and was just about a mile due north at the time of the collision, so may well be the object in the video claimed to be a drone. 310 can be seen on ADSB Exchange.

[wrench1]

Prelim report out:
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/a...ort/106276/pdf

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Thanks wrench1

"According to the recorded audio for the airshow radio transmissions and Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data, the air boss directed both formations to maneuver southwest of the runway before returning to the flying display area, which was the designated performance area. He directed the fighter formation to transition to a trail formation, fly in front of the bomber formation, and proceed near the 500 ft show line. The bombers were directed to fly down the 1,000 ft show line. The 500 ft show line and 1,000 ft show line were 500 ft and 1,000 ft respectively from the airshow viewing line behind which the audience viewed the airshow."

So the airboss wanted the fighters closer to the crowd which maybe goes a step further to explaining why the P63 was in that part of the sky and counters some of the earlier comments about the fighters being closer to the runway/crowd line than expected.. That above instruction, with the fighters already on the tighter turn arc caused an enforced track crossover.

[First_Principal]

Just so it's clear, in relation to 31, is someone able to show or explain the whereabouts of the "airshow viewing line behind which the audience viewed the airshow" ?

Given some earlier comments I remain uncertain of this, as I suspect others might be too.

Also, in the video linked to Flying Binghi's post above (Dallas air show crash) there is a link to the preflight briefing. To me the useful detail (in trying to understand things from a non-airshow pilot's perspective) starts at about 7:37 in that video. What I hear is winds are gusty from the NW, and at around 8:39 that 'fast movers' (P51 specifically mentioned) should be at 2300AGL, or 3000MSL to 'put you above everybody'. Then at 8:48 'bombers' should go to 2000??? - the video appears cut off, but I'm guessing this might be MSL, thus giving 1000' vertical separation.

This suggests to me that there should be vertical separation as well as lateral - but is that just for the manoeuvring at the end of each run, not the procession past the crowd?

Thanks,

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

This link takes you to the display programme map page.

https://wingsoverdallas.org/map/

The image below shows the siting of the pavillions and viewing chalets with the main runway running left to right just out of view across the top of that picture. North is in the 4 o'clock direction.



Based on the comments in the prelim report I suggest the lines would be something like this...
Site layout from the Programme

Estimated displacement from crowd line


The runway centreline as the closest line makes sense and there appears to be a red/white checker building and mast as a good sighting point for the 1000ft line.

Hope that helps

[First_Principal]

Thanks SATCOS WHIPPING BOY, that's very useful.

So if I have right (and rotate the image so north is top), both lines of aircraft were in a LH circuit for 31, and from the information in the NTSB report the line of a/c closer to the crowd should have been the fighters, with the bombers further out at the 1000ft line. If that's correct then, from I've seen so far, I quite agree with your earlier comment around a track crossover!

[fdr]

Originally Posted by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY

Thanks wrench1

"According to the recorded audio for the airshow radio transmissions and Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data, the air boss directed both formations to maneuver southwest of the runway before returning to the flying display area, which was the designated performance area. He directed the fighter formation to transition to a trail formation, fly in front of the bomber formation, and proceed near the 500 ft show line. The bombers were directed to fly down the 1,000 ft show line. The 500 ft show line and 1,000 ft show line were 500 ft and 1,000 ft respectively from the airshow viewing line behind which the audience viewed the airshow."

So the airboss wanted the fighters closer to the crowd which maybe goes a step further to explaining why the P63 was in that part of the sky and counters some of the earlier comments about the fighters being closer to the runway/crowd line than expected.. That above instruction, with the fighters already on the tighter turn arc caused an enforced track crossover.

The fighters were going to be closer to the crowd line than the bombers, but should have also been above and in front of the bombers. Both formations were coming from the same area, so whether there was a crossover expected depends on where the formations were holding relative to the planned flight path. It would appear that the marshalling of the formations was relatively loose, and what happened thereafter, the fighters end up at a substantial track offset to the bombers to set up for the the planned pass. That definitely needs some amendment before the next time we attempt to disassemble aircraft in flight.

• A height separation would have avoided this outcome.
• A marshalling area that permitted an IP to be used to ensure that the formations were in a managed order would avoid this type of event.

[Ivor_Bigunn]

According to the linked Preliminary Report:

"There were no altitude deconflictions briefed before the flight or while the airplanes were in the air. When the fighter formation approached the flying display area, the P-63F was in a left bank and it collided with the left side of the B-17G, just aft of the wing section."

Which I understand to mean that the Fighters and Bombers were never separated vertically.

That does not look like safe planning.

IB

[22/04]

Both cross over and similar altitude look like less than optimal decisions to me although I am not an airshow pilot

[sycamore]

If ,during the airborne phase,there is a change to the `order,heights,speeds,lines` then that should be broadcast ,in clear ,and acknowledged by each individual pilot,as there was no `formation flypast ie 3 fighters in `vic`....!!

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by Ivor_Bigunn

That does not look like safe planning.

This being the USA, one hopes the Commemorative Air Force has adequate insurance.