Dallas air show crash
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: U.S. A.
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by finestkind
Have you read the post's. Loss of SA combined with lack of visibility due to cowling and wing in an increasing tight turning rejoin is highly more likely.
The P-63 turn not only overshoots the fighter parade line by 1000 feet (or whatever the prescribed flight line separation), but also was overshooting the bomber parade line before the collision. Why was he so far outside the planned flight path? Flying a circuit along a line along the ground is one of the first things a pilot learns, yet a highly experienced professional pilot misjudges by 1000+ feet in a parade of aircraft? There has to be more to the story.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by whitefriars
Very sad. I see it happened at Dallas Executive airport, or Redbird, as I fondly remember it. Learn’t to fly there in 1980.
Join Date: Nov 2022
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You beat me to it. I was about to post up the ADSB track overlay I created. My ATC background makes me very curious about the procedures and briefings.
I watched the video posted earlier containing portions of the Airboss briefing which didn't answer any questions and in fact raised more. Two different pattern altitudes were mentioned in the briefing (2000 and 2300) which are very different from what was flown. Interested to know what the procedures were for changing levels not comments posted earlier: The Airboss had briefed the fighters to stay high and bombers to stay low, with the option for the fighters to share the bomber altitude block if everything looked clear.
Does anyone have any more information on the pattern they were flying. Opposite direction passes with tear drop turns at each end. Is this normal for these types of displays, or something specific to this event?
Where would the Airboss have been positioned? I've seen them setup in a variety of positions at different events and often not in the Tower with ATC.
I watched the video posted earlier containing portions of the Airboss briefing which didn't answer any questions and in fact raised more. Two different pattern altitudes were mentioned in the briefing (2000 and 2300) which are very different from what was flown. Interested to know what the procedures were for changing levels not comments posted earlier: The Airboss had briefed the fighters to stay high and bombers to stay low, with the option for the fighters to share the bomber altitude block if everything looked clear.
Does anyone have any more information on the pattern they were flying. Opposite direction passes with tear drop turns at each end. Is this normal for these types of displays, or something specific to this event?
Where would the Airboss have been positioned? I've seen them setup in a variety of positions at different events and often not in the Tower with ATC.
Originally Posted by Flying Binghi
Blancolirio has a look-see:
The ADSB data referenced in the video:
The ADSB data referenced in the video:
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ADS-B data in the above post correct a couple of items and add a couple to the puzzle. The bombers were making teardrop turns to return back to the airshow line. The fighters look like they were actually doing the same teardrop orbit. If you look at the ADS-B in the bottom You tube of two in Flying Binghi's post you may have a hint as to what could have happened.
There were two Mustangs and the P-63 in the fighter parade and they entered the turn in at 1700 and descended to 500 for the pass. The lead Mustang is so far out front he doesn't even appear in any of the videos and they don't show his ADS B path. At about 25 seconds of the bottom ADS-B track video you see the P63 almost pass the Mustang as they start the left turn for the 45 dogleg to the parade line. They are both at 1700 feet as they start the left turn in. The Mustang starts to dive and the -63 holds altitude and separation starts to build as the Mustang is diving and the -63 is level. The -17 isn't squawking altitude but does show that he is also in a descending left turn with my assumption given the rate of descent that he was below the fighters until they roll into the final for the show line. The -63 drifts all the way outside the flight path of the bomber on the turn in (45 seconds) and then begins a rapid descent as he enters a 45 to the final. He is a is outside of the Mustang path to the final and everyone is descending to 500'. The -63 impact the -17 outside the path of the Mustang he is tail chasing.
The question comes to mind why were the Mustang and the -63 so tight on the perch as they were getting ready to dive to 500'? This was a recipe for disaster as the -63 only cure laterally was to widen out to gain spacing. He had to dive to keep the Mustang from disappearing below his nose and the lack of spacing caused him to drift wide and into the bomber. I agree with the commentator he never saw the bomber but with them being so tight on the perch before they dove you can see why he was fixated on the Mustang.
In the previous year they flew formations of fighters over the bomber parade. Someone is going to have to explain why they chose to mix disparate aircraft at the same altitude flying the same pattern while asking a crew to maintain separation with the fighter in front of them while also spacing off the bombers they are passing. This seems like a plan that had undue risk for a dubious visual reward.
There were two Mustangs and the P-63 in the fighter parade and they entered the turn in at 1700 and descended to 500 for the pass. The lead Mustang is so far out front he doesn't even appear in any of the videos and they don't show his ADS B path. At about 25 seconds of the bottom ADS-B track video you see the P63 almost pass the Mustang as they start the left turn for the 45 dogleg to the parade line. They are both at 1700 feet as they start the left turn in. The Mustang starts to dive and the -63 holds altitude and separation starts to build as the Mustang is diving and the -63 is level. The -17 isn't squawking altitude but does show that he is also in a descending left turn with my assumption given the rate of descent that he was below the fighters until they roll into the final for the show line. The -63 drifts all the way outside the flight path of the bomber on the turn in (45 seconds) and then begins a rapid descent as he enters a 45 to the final. He is a is outside of the Mustang path to the final and everyone is descending to 500'. The -63 impact the -17 outside the path of the Mustang he is tail chasing.
The question comes to mind why were the Mustang and the -63 so tight on the perch as they were getting ready to dive to 500'? This was a recipe for disaster as the -63 only cure laterally was to widen out to gain spacing. He had to dive to keep the Mustang from disappearing below his nose and the lack of spacing caused him to drift wide and into the bomber. I agree with the commentator he never saw the bomber but with them being so tight on the perch before they dove you can see why he was fixated on the Mustang.
In the previous year they flew formations of fighters over the bomber parade. Someone is going to have to explain why they chose to mix disparate aircraft at the same altitude flying the same pattern while asking a crew to maintain separation with the fighter in front of them while also spacing off the bombers they are passing. This seems like a plan that had undue risk for a dubious visual reward.
Originally Posted by dbenj
Yes, I read it. Loss of SA provides an adequate explanation for this accident.
The P-63 turn not only overshoots the fighter parade line by 1000 feet (or whatever the prescribed flight line separation), but also was overshooting the bomber parade line before the collision. Why was he so far outside the planned flight path? Flying a circuit along a line along the ground is one of the first things a pilot learns, yet a highly experienced professional pilot misjudges by 1000+ feet in a parade of aircraft? There has to be more to the story.
The P-63 turn not only overshoots the fighter parade line by 1000 feet (or whatever the prescribed flight line separation), but also was overshooting the bomber parade line before the collision. Why was he so far outside the planned flight path? Flying a circuit along a line along the ground is one of the first things a pilot learns, yet a highly experienced professional pilot misjudges by 1000+ feet in a parade of aircraft? There has to be more to the story.
falls behind other aircraft. Puts pedal to the metal to try and catch up. Tries to turn but gets massive understeer as going at excessive speed. Goes wide , off the road and hits a tree. Or in this case another aircraft. And obviously no understeer but a much wider turn due to speed. Focus on trying to get back with the pack. And not on where he was.
Originally Posted by beamer
Amidst all the theories and contributory factors……sometimes it just comes down to a mistake by a human being that leads to tragic consequences.
Even a 200ft separation contract would have prevented this for almost no visual change.
A bit of a setup.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 72
Posts: 3,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blancolirio once more gives the most likely scenario and explains it well. so let's resume ,: focus on catching up with preceding doing 215 Kts ,making wider turn due to speed. , loss of SA , i.e. no visual with slower B17 mainly due to the design of th P-63 ,and possibly paint scheme of B17 and both aircraft were aiming at the overpass line , Then my problem is what were they doing at the same altitude ? was this the original plan from the beginning ? Everyone overfly the line at 500ft with aircraft at different speeds ? I have difficulty to believe this.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by K-13
How could a pilot perform a loss of situational awareness clearing manoeuvre when he had no idea that he had lost situational awareness.
There's a great example in a TED talk about being wrong. To paraphrase, being wrong feels just the same as being right. What most think of as the bad feeling of being wrong is actually the feeling one has at finding out. Because being wrong feels just the same as being right, there's no gut-feel to look at the situation any differently. The loss of situational awareness can feel exactly like everything is under control and everything is perfectly understood.
If being wrong felt any different then no multiple-choice tests could be failed.
If being wrong felt any different then no multiple-choice tests could be failed.
Originally Posted by whitefriars
Very sad. I see it happened at Dallas Executive airport, or Redbird, as I fondly remember it. Learn’t to fly there in 1980.
Originally Posted by MechEngr
There's a great example in a TED talk about being wrong. To paraphrase, being wrong feels just the same as being right. What most think of as the bad feeling of being wrong is actually the feeling one has at finding out. Because being wrong feels just the same as being right, there's no gut-feel to look at the situation any differently. The loss of situational awareness can feel exactly like everything is under control and everything is perfectly understood.
If being wrong felt any different then no multiple-choice tests could be failed.
If being wrong felt any different then no multiple-choice tests could be failed.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: miles from home
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by uxb99
Isn't this the problem here?
"with the option for the fighters to share the bomber altitude block if everything looked clear"
Looking clear does not mean clear.
"with the option for the fighters to share the bomber altitude block if everything looked clear"
Looking clear does not mean clear.
Completely agree
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: usa
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flying_Scotsman
I am also concerned, from a UK perspective, why there were 5 people on the B17? UK rules dictate that only the minimum operating crew should be aboard during any display flying. I would expect that to be 2, or at the most 3?
1) Display flying does involve a higher level of risk.
2) This can and should be minimized by following best practices for flight procedures.
3) Opportunities for flight experiences in these aircraft are so rare. Especially in the dynamic environment of an air display which arguably is the only thing that comes even remotely close to replicating how they were originally used.
Why should point 1 be allowed to trump all others? Why should point 3 be assigned a weight of zero? Isn't the end case of the "minimize all risks at all costs" philosophy an evolution towards allowing straight and level flight only, with no other planes in the sky? Or toward static display only?
Just a thought...
Why
Originally Posted by flyer101flyer
Tradeoffs--
1) Display flying does involve a higher level of risk.
2) This can and should be minimized by following best practices for flight procedures.
3) Opportunities for flight experiences in these aircraft are so rare. Especially in the dynamic environment of an air display which arguably is the only thing that comes even remotely close to replicating how they were originally used.
Why should point 1 be allowed to trump all others? Why should point 3 be assigned a weight of zero? Isn't the end case of the "minimize all risks at all costs" philosophy an evolution towards allowing straight and level flight only, with no other planes in the sky? Or toward static display only?
Just a thought...
Why
1) Display flying does involve a higher level of risk.
2) This can and should be minimized by following best practices for flight procedures.
3) Opportunities for flight experiences in these aircraft are so rare. Especially in the dynamic environment of an air display which arguably is the only thing that comes even remotely close to replicating how they were originally used.
Why should point 1 be allowed to trump all others? Why should point 3 be assigned a weight of zero? Isn't the end case of the "minimize all risks at all costs" philosophy an evolution towards allowing straight and level flight only, with no other planes in the sky? Or toward static display only?
Just a thought...
Why
I highly doubt that the fighters and bombers were ever planned to be co-altitude. Every Airshow I participated in, there were strict altitude separation criteria. If you look at many of the video’s the P-63 wasn’t co-altitude with the B-17, it was higher. In fact, prior to impact it was in a descending left turn.
