Dallas air show crash
..."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....
Which I understand to mean that the Fighters and Bombers were never separated vertically....
However despite what appeared to be clear instructions around altitude separation I thought the video wasn't complete, so it's possible there were later instructions, or this video isn't relevant. More likely I just don't properly understand - hence my earlier question, in order to learn.
FP.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks JMVR , I did wonder if it was relevant or not.
I've never been to one of these displays, but had wondered/thought the general plan would have been the same. However, upon review, I really don't think I did a good job of explaining what I was trying to learn about; in any event it's not especially pertinent to the current discussion so it's probably best I wait to see if the answer comes to light...
FP.
I've never been to one of these displays, but had wondered/thought the general plan would have been the same. However, upon review, I really don't think I did a good job of explaining what I was trying to learn about; in any event it's not especially pertinent to the current discussion so it's probably best I wait to see if the answer comes to light...
FP.
I believe that the references during the briefing to 3000', 2300' and 2000' would refer to holding heights/altitudes. Any airshow flypast at 2000'AGL would be unlikely. I would have expected the flypasts to be somewhere around 500' AGL, which is what they looked like, and that may be the info missing from the briefing video, or just missing.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There were no altitude deconflictions briefed before the flight or while the airplanes were in the air.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But at the same time it is for me at least, not understandable that experienced display pilots would have accepted this during the briefing . So there must be more to the story.
The maps above show the flight lines over the airfield and past the crowd nice and parallel. But as we all saw, that wasn't what was happening, the P63 was coming in at a good 20-30 degrees to the bomber right over the airfield (hence how the wreckage ended up within the fence). In a way they were lucky that the P63 struck the bomber full on, and the wreckage fell as a composite of the two aircraft's relative inertia. If it had struck a glancing blow, while still pointed at the crowd (which it was) then it could have gone anywhere. The P63 should never have been flown like that, bomber there or not, and the so-called Big Boss should have waved it off and upward out of the way as soon as it started to develop. I mean, what else are they there on the radio for ?
Actually it reminds me, being used to the formal structure at UK GA airfields, land clear rule, etc, of using USA GA airfields, which (to me) seem to have a much more freewheeling, anything goes, approach.
Actually it reminds me, being used to the formal structure at UK GA airfields, land clear rule, etc, of using USA GA airfields, which (to me) seem to have a much more freewheeling, anything goes, approach.
Moderator
.....then it could have gone anywhere. The P63 should never have been flown like that....
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 2017 in OSH , the air display of the Blue Angels , in their opening and closing figure one solo aircraft was overlying the crowd high speed at low level ,very spectacular but something we did not see in Europe anymore after Ramstein.
In my early days in French military air shows in the 1970s, the ususal way to start the airdisplay was to have 2 Aeronavale Crusaders overfling the crowd at 500 Kts with afterburners on . The crowd loved it. Ramstein changed all that.
But we went the other way, Today in 2022 , with the curent rules many hezitate to organise a proper airshow.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATL93FA061A NTSB FATAL MIDAIR FEB 1993.
DAY/VFR/POSITIVE CONTROL AIRSPACE/EXPERIENCED AVIATORS/EVERY AIRCREW MEMBER WAS AWARE OF ALL THE AIRCRAFT WITHIN AIRPORT TRAFFIC AREA....... PILOT DOES SOMETHING D-D-D. DUMB/DANGEROUS/DIFFERENT THAN EXPECTED.
Very Similar circumstances in this midair I am very familiar with. In "HARD VFR" weather, see-and-avoid by the eyes in the cockpits is the predominant rule governing separation. The person controlling the activity/airspace is only functioning in an "advisory role."
DAY/VFR/POSITIVE CONTROL AIRSPACE/EXPERIENCED AVIATORS/EVERY AIRCREW MEMBER WAS AWARE OF ALL THE AIRCRAFT WITHIN AIRPORT TRAFFIC AREA....... PILOT DOES SOMETHING D-D-D. DUMB/DANGEROUS/DIFFERENT THAN EXPECTED.
Very Similar circumstances in this midair I am very familiar with. In "HARD VFR" weather, see-and-avoid by the eyes in the cockpits is the predominant rule governing separation. The person controlling the activity/airspace is only functioning in an "advisory role."
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very Similar circumstances in this midair I am very familiar with. In "HARD VFR" weather, see-and-avoid by the eyes in the cockpits is the predominant rule governing separation. The person controlling the activity/airspace is only functioning in an "advisory role."
This did happen fast though.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’ve just been shown a video (received it on my phone so can’t link it here) , taken from the McDonald’s parking lot, that shows that tha P-63 hit a small object, most likely a drone, during its turn toward the flight line, and started to descent, suggesting a RPM loss. If anyone finds it and can link it on this board?
edit to add: to my knowledge, that would be the first hull loss, with loss of lives, due to a drone strike.
edit to add: to my knowledge, that would be the first hull loss, with loss of lives, due to a drone strike.
Couldn't there just be a global standard set of flight display regulations and standards including separation and formation display rules that everybody just has to stick to? Maybe by authorities or even insurances?
It's sad to see all those lives lost first but then no historic aircraft will survive if we continue like this. Every time there is just a big surprise how it could happen this time but never an overall approach to get things right. Time to act it seems.
It's sad to see all those lives lost first but then no historic aircraft will survive if we continue like this. Every time there is just a big surprise how it could happen this time but never an overall approach to get things right. Time to act it seems.
Gnome de PPRuNe
fab777
As per posts quoted below, the drone video is almost certainly a red herring...
As per posts quoted below, the drone video is almost certainly a red herring...
Latest one is did it hit a drone, see the link.
https://eurasiantimes.com/mid-air-ho...cobra-collide/
https://eurasiantimes.com/mid-air-ho...cobra-collide/
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.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For example I checked the current Canadian regs. Only a level, non turning flight over the crowd is allowed, min 1000', and either by a single aircraft or aircraft in trail (not a formation).
Out over the regular show area, there are various regs about pointing the aircraft towards the crowed, directing energy towards the crowd. For a moment while in a turn by a single aircraft with a particular separation from the crowd, OK. For a moment while in an aerobatic maneuver, OK. For a moment while in a turn by a formation, requires special assessment. Pulling or pushing out towards the crowd after an aerobatic maneuver, not allowed. There are rules on formation vs. non-formation flypasts. And crowd line distances understandably vary by aircraft speed. There are more details of course but that gives an idea of the situation.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me drop in some remarks, just based on the adsbexchange path/altitude diagram:
All altitudes/heights in WGS84 GPS measures, which seem to be 200-350 ft higher than the baro altitude (the P-51 and P-63 seem to differ with this with 150 ft, maybe somebody can report the WGS84 height of Dallas Executive Airport ?).
My notes:
- Before the climb to the turning point, the P-63 approaches the P-51 at 1800 ft with less than 50 ft altitude difference, with maybe 300 ft separation distance at 170kts. Challenging, do-able, though probably outside the allowed display limits, especially in a climbing/descending/turning situation.
- The P-63 initially takes evading action to "dive" and immediately reverts to a 1500 ft/min climb. Since the P-51 does do the same, the P-63 continuous evading action by increasing the climb rate to 2500 ft/min. The P-63 also widens the turn, evading the P-51 laterally.
- When the P-51 already turns towards the display line and starts descending, the P-63 keeps climbing and moving away from the display line entry point.
- The P-51 shows a civil & steady -640 ft/min decent rate.
- The P-63 goes in 11 seconds from a +2500 ft/min to (sustained) -4000 ft/min. An interesting amount of g-forces: Puking, disorienting, negative G's.
- When the P-63 is long into its dive, it seems to set course direct to the display line entry point (vs a more shallow turn, to be nicely parallel with the display line, when passing the display line entry point).
- Even at 1000 ft, the descent rate is still -2600 ft/min. Challenging, with a target altitude for horizontal flight of 700 ft.
- At 900 ft, the course is still direct towards the marker for the display line entry point.
- At 800 ft, the descent rate is still -1800 ft/min. Challenging to end up at 700 ft. It's a fighter, so do-able......
- Then, the P-63 track suddenly starts to change, seemingly in order to get parallel with / not overshoot the display line. Just, as is also visible on the Jason Whitely Twitter video, 1-2 seconds before impact, the P-63 is banking steeply.
Or, so to say, this seems to be a classical case of "getting behind the airplane". Initially (somewhat) in the climb, evading the P-51 with a significant climb rate (and widening the turn), and subsequently not normalizing the descent rate on the descent, with a disputable track selection to enter the display area. The recovery being potentially and realistically difficult due to the high negative G's at the moment of rounding the top of the climb. The sustained -4000 ft/min decent rate tells a story, you don't do this in a "tame" historic aircraft display situation.
The interesting question for this case is, where would the P-63 have ended up, when the B-17 would not have been there, in the P-63's flight path ?
Given the steep bank, there was little opportunity to stop the -1800 ft/min descent (at 800 ft, with probably 200-350 less effective altitude !). And I highly doubt, given the P-63 and B-17 do have, right before impact, a 30 degrees track difference, whether the P-63 would not have caused a display line overshoot of some 200-300 ft. Combine that with the significant descent rate (probably increasing again, due to the steep bank), and it certainly would have been possible, the P-63 would have impacted the ground in a steep bank, with a 200+ KTS speed, shattered, etc, just around, where the display public would have been located.
And, finally, was the steep bank a B-17 evading action, or was it an attempt to not overshoot the display line ? I would expect the latter one, given a better B-17 evading action would have been to climb (or at least, no further descent, which would have been sufficient). More than enough kinetic energy in the aircraft and pull-up capabilities to do so.
Could it be, there was a mechanical malfunction with the P-63: Of course, though probably not, given the last moment "try to save the beans" bank angle change.
All altitudes/heights in WGS84 GPS measures, which seem to be 200-350 ft higher than the baro altitude (the P-51 and P-63 seem to differ with this with 150 ft, maybe somebody can report the WGS84 height of Dallas Executive Airport ?).
My notes:
- Before the climb to the turning point, the P-63 approaches the P-51 at 1800 ft with less than 50 ft altitude difference, with maybe 300 ft separation distance at 170kts. Challenging, do-able, though probably outside the allowed display limits, especially in a climbing/descending/turning situation.
- The P-63 initially takes evading action to "dive" and immediately reverts to a 1500 ft/min climb. Since the P-51 does do the same, the P-63 continuous evading action by increasing the climb rate to 2500 ft/min. The P-63 also widens the turn, evading the P-51 laterally.
- When the P-51 already turns towards the display line and starts descending, the P-63 keeps climbing and moving away from the display line entry point.
- The P-51 shows a civil & steady -640 ft/min decent rate.
- The P-63 goes in 11 seconds from a +2500 ft/min to (sustained) -4000 ft/min. An interesting amount of g-forces: Puking, disorienting, negative G's.
- When the P-63 is long into its dive, it seems to set course direct to the display line entry point (vs a more shallow turn, to be nicely parallel with the display line, when passing the display line entry point).
- Even at 1000 ft, the descent rate is still -2600 ft/min. Challenging, with a target altitude for horizontal flight of 700 ft.
- At 900 ft, the course is still direct towards the marker for the display line entry point.
- At 800 ft, the descent rate is still -1800 ft/min. Challenging to end up at 700 ft. It's a fighter, so do-able......
- Then, the P-63 track suddenly starts to change, seemingly in order to get parallel with / not overshoot the display line. Just, as is also visible on the Jason Whitely Twitter video, 1-2 seconds before impact, the P-63 is banking steeply.
Or, so to say, this seems to be a classical case of "getting behind the airplane". Initially (somewhat) in the climb, evading the P-51 with a significant climb rate (and widening the turn), and subsequently not normalizing the descent rate on the descent, with a disputable track selection to enter the display area. The recovery being potentially and realistically difficult due to the high negative G's at the moment of rounding the top of the climb. The sustained -4000 ft/min decent rate tells a story, you don't do this in a "tame" historic aircraft display situation.
The interesting question for this case is, where would the P-63 have ended up, when the B-17 would not have been there, in the P-63's flight path ?
Given the steep bank, there was little opportunity to stop the -1800 ft/min descent (at 800 ft, with probably 200-350 less effective altitude !). And I highly doubt, given the P-63 and B-17 do have, right before impact, a 30 degrees track difference, whether the P-63 would not have caused a display line overshoot of some 200-300 ft. Combine that with the significant descent rate (probably increasing again, due to the steep bank), and it certainly would have been possible, the P-63 would have impacted the ground in a steep bank, with a 200+ KTS speed, shattered, etc, just around, where the display public would have been located.
And, finally, was the steep bank a B-17 evading action, or was it an attempt to not overshoot the display line ? I would expect the latter one, given a better B-17 evading action would have been to climb (or at least, no further descent, which would have been sufficient). More than enough kinetic energy in the aircraft and pull-up capabilities to do so.
Could it be, there was a mechanical malfunction with the P-63: Of course, though probably not, given the last moment "try to save the beans" bank angle change.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
5 Posts
Let me drop in some remarks, just based on the adsbexchange path/altitude diagram:
All altitudes/heights in WGS84 GPS measures, which seem to be 200-350 ft higher than the baro altitude (the P-51 and P-63 seem to differ with this with 150 ft, maybe somebody can report the WGS84 height of Dallas Executive Airport ?).
My notes:
- Before the climb to the turning point, the P-63 approaches the P-51 at 1800 ft with less than 50 ft altitude difference, with maybe 300 ft separation distance at 170kts. Challenging, do-able, though probably outside the allowed display limits, especially in a climbing/descending/turning situation.
- The P-63 initially takes evading action to "dive" and immediately reverts to a 1500 ft/min climb. Since the P-51 does do the same, the P-63 continuous evading action by increasing the climb rate to 2500 ft/min. The P-63 also widens the turn, evading the P-51 laterally.
- When the P-51 already turns towards the display line and starts descending, the P-63 keeps climbing and moving away from the display line entry point.
- The P-51 shows a civil & steady -640 ft/min decent rate.
- The P-63 goes in 11 seconds from a +2500 ft/min to (sustained) -4000 ft/min. An interesting amount of g-forces: Puking, disorienting, negative G's.
- When the P-63 is long into its dive, it seems to set course direct to the display line entry point (vs a more shallow turn, to be nicely parallel with the display line, when passing the display line entry point).
- Even at 1000 ft, the descent rate is still -2600 ft/min. Challenging, with a target altitude for horizontal flight of 700 ft.
- At 900 ft, the course is still direct towards the marker for the display line entry point.
- At 800 ft, the descent rate is still -1800 ft/min. Challenging to end up at 700 ft. It's a fighter, so do-able......
- Then, the P-63 track suddenly starts to change, seemingly in order to get parallel with / not overshoot the display line. Just, as is also visible on the Jason Whitely Twitter video, 1-2 seconds before impact, the P-63 is banking steeply.
Or, so to say, this seems to be a classical case of "getting behind the airplane". Initially (somewhat) in the climb, evading the P-51 with a significant climb rate (and widening the turn), and subsequently not normalizing the descent rate on the descent, with a disputable track selection to enter the display area. The recovery being potentially and realistically difficult due to the high negative G's at the moment of rounding the top of the climb. The sustained -4000 ft/min decent rate tells a story, you don't do this in a "tame" historic aircraft display situation.
The interesting question for this case is, where would the P-63 have ended up, when the B-17 would not have been there, in the P-63's flight path ?
Given the steep bank, there was little opportunity to stop the -1800 ft/min descent (at 800 ft, with probably 200-350 less effective altitude !). And I highly doubt, given the P-63 and B-17 do have, right before impact, a 30 degrees track difference, whether the P-63 would not have caused a display line overshoot of some 200-300 ft. Combine that with the significant descent rate (probably increasing again, due to the steep bank), and it certainly would have been possible, the P-63 would have impacted the ground in a steep bank, with a 200+ KTS speed, shattered, etc, just around, where the display public would have been located.
And, finally, was the steep bank a B-17 evading action, or was it an attempt to not overshoot the display line ? I would expect the latter one, given a better B-17 evading action would have been to climb (or at least, no further descent, which would have been sufficient). More than enough kinetic energy in the aircraft and pull-up capabilities to do so.
Could it be, there was a mechanical malfunction with the P-63: Of course, though probably not, given the last moment "try to save the beans" bank angle change.
All altitudes/heights in WGS84 GPS measures, which seem to be 200-350 ft higher than the baro altitude (the P-51 and P-63 seem to differ with this with 150 ft, maybe somebody can report the WGS84 height of Dallas Executive Airport ?).
My notes:
- Before the climb to the turning point, the P-63 approaches the P-51 at 1800 ft with less than 50 ft altitude difference, with maybe 300 ft separation distance at 170kts. Challenging, do-able, though probably outside the allowed display limits, especially in a climbing/descending/turning situation.
- The P-63 initially takes evading action to "dive" and immediately reverts to a 1500 ft/min climb. Since the P-51 does do the same, the P-63 continuous evading action by increasing the climb rate to 2500 ft/min. The P-63 also widens the turn, evading the P-51 laterally.
- When the P-51 already turns towards the display line and starts descending, the P-63 keeps climbing and moving away from the display line entry point.
- The P-51 shows a civil & steady -640 ft/min decent rate.
- The P-63 goes in 11 seconds from a +2500 ft/min to (sustained) -4000 ft/min. An interesting amount of g-forces: Puking, disorienting, negative G's.
- When the P-63 is long into its dive, it seems to set course direct to the display line entry point (vs a more shallow turn, to be nicely parallel with the display line, when passing the display line entry point).
- Even at 1000 ft, the descent rate is still -2600 ft/min. Challenging, with a target altitude for horizontal flight of 700 ft.
- At 900 ft, the course is still direct towards the marker for the display line entry point.
- At 800 ft, the descent rate is still -1800 ft/min. Challenging to end up at 700 ft. It's a fighter, so do-able......
- Then, the P-63 track suddenly starts to change, seemingly in order to get parallel with / not overshoot the display line. Just, as is also visible on the Jason Whitely Twitter video, 1-2 seconds before impact, the P-63 is banking steeply.
Or, so to say, this seems to be a classical case of "getting behind the airplane". Initially (somewhat) in the climb, evading the P-51 with a significant climb rate (and widening the turn), and subsequently not normalizing the descent rate on the descent, with a disputable track selection to enter the display area. The recovery being potentially and realistically difficult due to the high negative G's at the moment of rounding the top of the climb. The sustained -4000 ft/min decent rate tells a story, you don't do this in a "tame" historic aircraft display situation.
The interesting question for this case is, where would the P-63 have ended up, when the B-17 would not have been there, in the P-63's flight path ?
Given the steep bank, there was little opportunity to stop the -1800 ft/min descent (at 800 ft, with probably 200-350 less effective altitude !). And I highly doubt, given the P-63 and B-17 do have, right before impact, a 30 degrees track difference, whether the P-63 would not have caused a display line overshoot of some 200-300 ft. Combine that with the significant descent rate (probably increasing again, due to the steep bank), and it certainly would have been possible, the P-63 would have impacted the ground in a steep bank, with a 200+ KTS speed, shattered, etc, just around, where the display public would have been located.
And, finally, was the steep bank a B-17 evading action, or was it an attempt to not overshoot the display line ? I would expect the latter one, given a better B-17 evading action would have been to climb (or at least, no further descent, which would have been sufficient). More than enough kinetic energy in the aircraft and pull-up capabilities to do so.
Could it be, there was a mechanical malfunction with the P-63: Of course, though probably not, given the last moment "try to save the beans" bank angle change.
The P-63 goes in 11 seconds from a +2500 ft/min to (sustained) -4000 ft/min. An interesting amount of g-forces: Puking, disorienting, negative G's
Just watched the Blancolirio channel video.
The bomber and fighter streams were ordered to cross each others paths by the airboss. Ouch. I wouldn't have thought such an order would be given at an air show.
Seems common sense to me to separate by distance, altitude and speed.
Lets hope they implement safety measures to ensure it doesn't happen again.
The bomber and fighter streams were ordered to cross each others paths by the airboss. Ouch. I wouldn't have thought such an order would be given at an air show.
Seems common sense to me to separate by distance, altitude and speed.
Lets hope they implement safety measures to ensure it doesn't happen again.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The P-51 shows all over the descent track, a moderate -650 ft/min.
So, yeah, a huge difference between the P-51 and P-63, especially for a "tame" ward bird display, that close to the ground and watching public.
In itself, these items can happen and are manageable, though given the P-63's need to resolve the P-51 prox, the subsequent steep dive and the chosen track "direct" to the display entry point, shows the pilot being behind the aircraft with his actions (IE insufficient real-time insight in the consequences of the choices). That -4000 ft/min should simply never have happened.
