Accidents and Close Calls Discussion on accidents, close calls, and other unplanned aviation events, so we can learn from them, and be better pilots ourselves.

Dallas air show crash

Old 25th Nov 2022, 15:37
  #201 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 34
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Do not confuse or conflate trained, serial processing with the concept of multitasking.
moosepileit is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2022, 18:58
  #202 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 1,141
Received 55 Likes on 28 Posts
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.
SATCOS WHIPPING BOY is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2022, 21:09
  #203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SAUDI
Posts: 462
Received 12 Likes on 8 Posts
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.
finestkind is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2022, 06:21
  #204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: USA
Posts: 837
Received 190 Likes on 104 Posts
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.
MechEngr is online now  
Old 27th Nov 2022, 14:17
  #205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Royal Berkshire
Posts: 1,734
Received 76 Likes on 38 Posts
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.

GeeRam is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2022, 17:54
  #206 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 534
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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...
Concours77 is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2022, 18:49
  #207 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oxford
Age: 85
Posts: 458
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
I was always taught (and I taught) that joining up with another aircraft was always from below and visual?
Bill Macgillivray is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2022, 22:55
  #208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,742
Received 2,727 Likes on 1,160 Posts
Latest one is did it hit a drone, see the link.

https://eurasiantimes.com/mid-air-ho...cobra-collide/
NutLoose is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2022, 23:40
  #209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 5,926
Received 389 Likes on 204 Posts
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".
megan is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2022, 04:16
  #210 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,593
Received 274 Likes on 152 Posts
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.
treadigraph is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2022, 19:54
  #211 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 751
Received 24 Likes on 19 Posts
Prelim report out:
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/a...ort/106276/pdf
wrench1 is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2022, 22:52
  #212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 1,141
Received 55 Likes on 28 Posts
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.
SATCOS WHIPPING BOY is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2022, 23:23
  #213 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: not where I want to be
Posts: 519
Received 45 Likes on 30 Posts
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,

Last edited by First_Principal; 30th Nov 2022 at 23:54. Reason: Add further query.
First_Principal is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2022, 00:09
  #214 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 1,141
Received 55 Likes on 28 Posts
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

Last edited by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY; 1st Dec 2022 at 00:23. Reason: spelling
SATCOS WHIPPING BOY is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2022, 00:54
  #215 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: not where I want to be
Posts: 519
Received 45 Likes on 30 Posts
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!
First_Principal is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2022, 03:40
  #216 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 2,951
Received 856 Likes on 256 Posts
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.
fdr is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2022, 09:28
  #217 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: switzerland
Posts: 48
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
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
Ivor_Bigunn is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2022, 10:42
  #218 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Both cross over and similar altitude look like less than optimal decisions to me although I am not an airshow pilot
22/04 is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2022, 12:18
  #219 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east ESSEX
Posts: 4,650
Received 68 Likes on 43 Posts
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`....!!
sycamore is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2022, 13:53
  #220 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,648
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 15 Posts
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.
WHBM is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.