Dallas air show crash

[JEM60]

Couldn't agree more!!. Having seen 9 Airshow crashes and 11 lives lost, I cringed at what I saw at Oshkosh on numerous occasions. In England, I never liked to see close formation aerobatics. I always felt that another 6 foot clearance would make little difference to the spectacle!.

[WideScreen]

I think I’m a bit sceptical about relying on instantaneous data from an 80 years old pitot-static system in an aircraft that may not be flying in balance. I’m certainly sceptical that whatever g forces were involved would induce “puking and disorientation”! Are you a pilot? Have you flown aerobatics? (Acrobatics for our US members)
Intriguing, that an "after-market" Mode-C device in a war-bird would deliver lower quality altitude information, than a similar one in a 30-years old C172. Flying a war-bird without a proper functioning pitot-static system doesn't look that wise to me, either. It's pretty basic stuff, nothing special. And the video shows, the calibration differs a little between the P-63 and the P-51, see my earlier posting, though not that much, that it would be worrying. I've flown C172s, obviously significantly more out of calibration, already at 1500 ft AGND.

The issue with "aerobatics" is not the amount of G-forces for the P-63 (for aerobatics a piece of cake), but the track/altitude/speed indications of the P-63, signaling, things aren't going that well: Too close to the P-51, significant positive VS, for a tame war-bird display extreme negative VS (as well the quoted "negative-G" reverting from the positive VS), as well the "direct to" the display entry marker course. All items that should not have happened, though, add up to the out-of-mental-pilot-control collision. Feel free to call this something else as "behind the aircraft".

With my added remark: "Where would the P-63 have end-up, IF the B-17 was not there ?". All indications show, the P-63 might have ended-up entering the display visitors area, at ground-level.

[WideScreen]

And, regarding "blaming" the airboss: Forget about this. These things happen that fast, that there is no opportunity to monitor a bag of data from a whole bunch of aircraft, draw conclusions about WHAT is (potentially) going to happen, AND then decide to intervene, AND define a proper action, AND assume that the intervention will receive the party being intervened AND assume the intervened party will act accordingly. All in real-time. No way.

[Chiefttp]

I flew a few air shows as a C-141 pilot. The air shows I participated in were very similar to the Dallas show. A lot of warbirds, and Bombers, plus modern jets and the Tora-Tora-Tora group. It was called the “Wings of Eagles” Airshow in Elmira New York. As I remember, the Airboss ran the show. There was still a tower and normal ATC, but while the show was going on, the Airboss was who we spoke to. Before the show, we provided the Airboss detailed information of our planned demo, times, Altitudes, speeds, etc. during the morning brief, which was mandatory for all participating crews, the Airboss would provide the schedule of events, takeoff times, and sequences. Once Airborne, we flew to a holding point, and awaited the Airboss’s clearance to commence our demo. Once cleared by the Airboss, we flew our demo and landed. The Airboss was basically the director and choreographer of the show.

[Locked door]

My understanding is that the Airboss is responsible for preventing the accident before any aircraft take off by creating choreography and a display sequence that ensures separation and makes an accident (almost) impossible.

If the accident aircraft were performing a permitted manoeuvre and were both their permitted locations then the Airboss shares some if not most of the responsibility for the accident.

No pilot can keep full SA with respect to all the other aircraft in that busy display. Separation should have been ensured with differing altitudes and display lines and no crossover permitted.

A very sad set of events.

ATB

And, regarding "blaming" the airboss: Forget about this. These things happen that fast, that there is no opportunity to monitor a bag of data from a whole bunch of aircraft, draw conclusions about WHAT is (potentially) going to happen, AND then decide to intervene, AND define a proper action, AND assume that the intervention will receive the party being intervened AND assume the intervened party will act accordingly. All in real-time. No way.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

And, regarding "blaming" the airboss: Forget about this. These things happen that fast, that there is no opportunity to monitor a bag of data from a whole bunch of aircraft, draw conclusions about WHAT is (potentially) going to happen, AND then decide to intervene, AND define a proper action, AND assume that the intervention will receive the party being intervened AND assume the intervened party will act accordingly. All in real-time. No way.
Sorry mate but I have to disagree here. The things you describe above are exactly what happens in a busy mixed-traffic circuit at any military airfield. I spent 6 years juggling metal at Boscombe Down which often had multiple aircraft types flying and landing in all directions. Is the Airboss a controller or just a mouthpiece?

Anyone controlling aircraft is fundamentally aware that you do not make aircraft cross paths unless there is vertical, lateral or time separation.

If that airboss told the fighters, who were on the inside of the turn radius, to come closer to the crowd than the bombers, thus crossing their paths without any height separation, screwed up by initiating what followed. BUT ultimately it was VFR flight and the responsibility lies wholly with the pilots.

[dbenj]

Intriguing, that an "after-market" Mode-C device in a war-bird would deliver lower quality altitude information, than a similar one in a 30-years old C172. Flying a war-bird without a proper functioning pitot-static system doesn't look that wise to me, either. It's pretty basic stuff, nothing special. And the video shows, the calibration differs a little between the P-63 and the P-51, see my earlier posting, though not that much, that it would be worrying. I've flown C172s, obviously significantly more out of calibration, already at 1500 ft AGND.


Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the data being discussed is ADS-B data from ADS-B Exchange. ADS-B does not rely on airspeed or altitude data generated by the aircraft, but rather reports on WAAS GPS generated data.

[ATC Watcher]

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the data being discussed is ADS-B data from ADS-B Exchange. ADS-B does not rely on airspeed or altitude data generated by the aircraft, but rather reports on WAAS GPS generated data.
I am not sure any of the 2 aircraft involved were equipped with ADS-B out , more likely the data you are talking about comes from F24 , and the data then coms from the transponders relayed via a few private antennas on the ground. It is not the certified ADS-B we talk about in ATC or Commerciall aviation.
As to using the vertical rates mentioined earlier , I persoally doubt the calculations and the figures posted . , FR24 is a great tool but is not exact science

[dbenj]

I am not sure any of the 2 aircraft involved were equipped with ADS-B out , more likely the data you are talking about comes from F24 , and the data then coms from the transponders relayed via a few private antennas on the ground. It is not the certified ADS-B we talk about in ATC or Commerciall aviation.
As to using the vertical rates mentioined earlier , I persoally doubt the calculations and the figures posted . , FR24 is a great tool but is not exact science

The posts above pretty clearly say it is ADS-B data. And if the aircraft were not ADS-B equipped, flying where they were would be illegal -- under/within Class B airspace.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

The posts above pretty clearly say it is ADS-B data. And if the aircraft were not ADS-B equipped, flying where they were would be illegal -- under/within Class B airspace.
Can't ATC authorize a non-ADSB aircraft to operate in Class B ?

Is the airspace Class B or Class D?

Prelim report states both aircreaft were ADSB equipped.

[DIBO]

I am not sure any of the 2 aircraft involved were equipped with ADS-B out , more likely the data you are talking about comes from F24 , and the data then coms from the transponders relayed via a few private antennas on the ground. It is not the certified ADS-B we talk about in ATC or Commerciall aviation.
As to using the vertical rates mentioined earlier , I persoally doubt the calculations and the figures posted . , FR24 is a great tool but is not exact science
You are referring to the MLAT feature used by FR24 for non-ADS-B equipped a/c, but this does not work for a/c at low level and is always too inaccurate for tracking a/c maneuvering sharply
And the Youtube clip from post #236 clearly shows ADS-B / UAT as Signal Source.

[ATC Watcher]

You are referring to the MLAT feature used by FR24 for non-ADS-B equipped a/c, but this does not work for a/c at low level and is always too inaccurate for tracking a/c maneuvering sharply
And the Youtube clip from post #236 clearly shows ADS-B / UAT as Signal Source.
Then I stand correted. I did not think a vintage aircrfraf such as a P-63 would be fitted with ADS-B-out /UAT, I do not know of any in Europe that would.be.hence my remark. My bad. .

[WideScreen]

Sorry mate but I have to disagree here.
No problem, that's fine with me, we don't live in China or Russia.
The things you describe above are exactly what happens in a busy mixed-traffic circuit at any military airfield. I spent 6 years juggling metal at Boscombe Down which often had multiple aircraft types flying and landing in all directions. Is the Airboss a controller or just a mouthpiece?
The controller does seem to be the obvious answer to me.

However, the controller still assumes, the pilots do follow the instructions, etc.

Once the pilots don't follow the instructions, things will become challenging for an airboss. Especially, when the flight-path more or less still resembles the agreed path, though with deviations not immediately clear for the naked eye (things like airspeed, altitude/height, vertical speed, exact 4D position, etc). For these situations, the airboss is simply blind, no suitable real-time information available, other than just a judgement, provided the airboss' eyes are pointing in the right direction at exactly that moment in time.

Let alone, how a non-perfect situation is going to develop for the worse or just evens out without further consequences.

Not to say, when a pilot is already behind the aircraft, it is unlikely, the pilot will understand and comply with an airboss request/instruction. If the need for a pilot instruction is determined at all, since these things do unfold in just 10-15 seconds.

I really think, it is unrealistic to assume an airboss is able to micromanage the things you put on the airboss his/her shoulders. Humans aren't able to run a TCAS with their brain, let alone the sensory tool itself is already suffering from inaccuracy .....

That's what I (try to) say.

Anyone controlling aircraft is fundamentally aware that you do not make aircraft cross paths unless there is vertical, lateral or time separation.
Yep, I came across that one too, though my understanding is, the video showing this instruction, was from the 2021 briefing. Correct me, when I am wrong.

If that airboss told the fighters, who were on the inside of the turn radius, to come closer to the crowd than the bombers, thus crossing their paths without any height separation, screwed up by initiating what followed. BUT ultimately it was VFR flight and the responsibility lies wholly with the pilots.
Yes, the "IF", thought that was AFAIK the 2021 briefing. As long as there is sufficient separation of at least one parameter in 4D (x,y,z,time), things are OK. Typically, when a pilot does get behind the aircraft, bearing VFR responsibility becomes a burden.

For this situation, both the flight path and the video (where the P-63 does head towards the camera) do show a trajectory not matching with this "at least one parameter in 4D" separation. And the "ADS-B" data does show what is going wrong.

[WideScreen]

My understanding is that the Airboss is responsible for preventing the accident before any aircraft take off by creating choreography and a display sequence that ensures separation and makes an accident (almost) impossible.
Yes, but is still depending on proper cooperation/compliance from the pilots flying the aircrafts.

If the accident aircraft were performing a permitted manoeuvre and were both their permitted locations then the Airboss shares some if not most of the responsibility for the accident.
Provided sufficient 4D separation is build in, that would take the airboss of the hook. Don't forget EVERY maneuver with more than one aircraft around the same ground infrastructure will ALWAYS have crossing flight-paths. It just needs to have at least 1 of the 4D parameters to have sufficient separation. If one parameter gets a little "close-by", add another one to increase separation.

No pilot can keep full SA with respect to all the other aircraft in that busy display. Separation should have been ensured with differing altitudes and display lines and no crossover permitted.

A very sad set of events.

ATB
Yep & Yep, though, see my previous remark about the logic around this subject.

[WideScreen]

I am not sure any of the 2 aircraft involved were equipped with ADS-B out , more likely the data you are talking about comes from F24 , and the data then coms from the transponders relayed via a few private antennas on the ground. It is not the certified ADS-B we talk about in ATC or Commerciall aviation.
I do think, this is just Mode-C/Mode-S, using MLat to get the added details. Although MLat is "declared" to be only useful above 3000ft, it highly depends on the number of receivers with proper sky-view in that area. Given the trajectories and other parameters are not really looking ragged, I think, the accuracy of the (playback !) flight paths in the YT video is pretty good. Not to say, the collision location fits quite good with the factual wreckage location(s).

For real-time professional use, the "FR24" is not that suitable, insufficiently calibrated, unreliable, etc.

Though for replay, with the opportunity to remove obviously wrong data points, recalibrate, etc, this data is also used by the national safety boards to analyze the happenings.
As to using the vertical rates mentioined earlier , I persoally doubt the calculations and the figures posted . , FR24 is a great tool but is not exact science
I think, on the contrary. FR24 is an excellent data source to retrieve otherwise lost data. Of course, one needs to calibrate this data against other known sources.

The simple fact, none of the relevant parameters for this accident does show ragged playback, suggests, the data is pretty reliable. When you calculate a vs from subsequent altitude data points, and the vs does not show jumpy values, it is reasonable to assume, the altitude data points are reliable and accurate (in a row, of course, needing calibration).

Of course, it could be, the static pressure system / Mode-C measuring of the P-63 is completely off calibration, though for that, check the earlier circuits of the P-63 in the same display. I didn't, though, feel free to do so and report back. I have no reasons to assume, the final 30 seconds of data points would show erroneous, whereas the earlier ones would be OK. FR24 gives really powerful data, provided you know what you do.

[uxb99]

The comments on this thread are all very interesting and very valid but seem to be missing one crucial fact (if fact is the right word) that all of the measures, distance, altitude, speed, air boss, atc, briefing, (add your variable here) mean nothing if the collision aircraft (and everyone else) doesn't perceive there is a conflict. Consider the following scenario. Air Boss orders that fighter stream to cross the bomber stream after checking that piece of air space is clear and that all fighters are in their respective air spaces. The P63 pilot looks at that piece of airspace where he will cross the stream and sees that it's clear (perhaps because the camo of the 17 hides the aircraft against the background) but understands that he will loose altitude in the turn. Again he checks those parameters, looks for conflicting traffic and sees nothing. The other aircraft are all checking their respective airspaces and they see everything as clear as do the safety persons and atc. Of course everyone is basing their decision on their own perception of what is happening at that time. Now you have a scenario where the perception, the speed of the closing aircraft, their flight profiles and angles of track, time compression and an element of bad luck all come together to create a tragedy. Accidents are normally a multitude of factors that come together and at the wrong time. I wonder how many times a similar scenario has played out and with just one parameter different there was no conflict and no tragedy.

I wish the families, the CAF and all involved in this tragedy a merry Christmas. It's going to be a hard time for them.

[WideScreen]

...... that all of the measures, distance, altitude, speed, air boss, atc, briefing, (add your variable here) mean nothing if the collision aircraft (and everyone else) doesn't perceive there is a conflict........
Actually, I do go one step further in my writing, that I seriously think all indications show, the P-63 pilot was that much behind the aircraft, that he didn't even get to the point, to being able to perceive there was an upcoming conflict (let alone conclude there was a conflict).

And, given the timing and rapid development of the situation, for any bystander, including the airboss, there was simply no opportunity to raise awareness for and/or correct the P-63 pilot.

[Waltzer]

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/dallas/article271123437.html?fbclid=IwAR3XMp23q96sGQcc4CJHBBCmG1BLZ zuRibb4u3fJk2-eXfqWx1IpoYhjeik

[megan]

A sad, sad photo.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1140x855/ab237_152a2b6fd15ea3510590ae4b676a615c873fb948.jpg

[Fargo Boyle]

Blancolorio's take on the audio transcript

https://youtu.be/WFgbDIM8M5s

[WideScreen]

Let me drop some notes on this additional information:

- The audio gives me serious thoughts about a person micromanaging something that can not be controlled/guarded by micromanagement.
- The airboss is that busy with the speaking, this person is no longer mentally able to monitor for a discrepancy between the "instructions" given and the factual implementation of the given instructions.
- Let alone, interpret potential upcoming conflicts, let alone react on that. There is simply no monitor or mental interpretation/decision capacity left.
- I'd personally call this airboss style more suitable for a local fancy-fair event.
- Earlier on in this thread, a video was included, where a double display line, together with ground plane projected crossing flight paths, was an item briefed.
- Presumably, this video was of the last-years' briefing. If correct, this implies this year's show was, at least the second year in a row, these crisscrossing flight paths were used. Investigation needs to reveal the fine details of this aspect.
- One thing the audio shows, the whole situation is pretty chaotic.

Now back to the reality and lets get the paper sheets, scissors and glue. Let's create the intended flight paths for the bomber and fighter jets in paper objects. Place these objects in a 3D space (using the 1000ft and 500 ft display lines at both 500ft altitude) and it will become clear, the flights paths effectively do cross only in 2D dimensions of the 4D (x,yz,t) we have. Or so to say, these flight paths will not interfere, as long as all airplanes follow their trajectories.

So, yep, in 4D a complex maneuver, though doable.

In just a few words, the bombers do run a pretty flat circuity, with little altitude changes and the fighters do come in from higher altitude with a significantly higher RoD. This implies, that the fighters will have an altitude clearance of (roughly) 200ft with the bombers, when crossing the 1000ft display line. Not much, but there is also a separation in time.

The P-63 did hit the B-17 at (just above 500ft), while crossing the 1000ft display line. Or so to say, the P-63 was far too low at that moment, if its target had been the 500ft display line. Not to say, with the actual RoD and the heavy banking, when hitting the B-17, the P-63 would have ended up far below the 500ft display altitude, when it would have arrived at the 500ft display line (and 500ft further potentially hitting the crowd). All, when the B-17 would not have been there.

The strange thing is, the audio is about 2 display lines, whereas the radar plots do seem to indicate both bombers and fighters do follow (more or less) the same display line (be it 500ft or 1000ft). So, something strange is happening here.

All in all, several conflicting aspects (developing ???) in(to) a chaotic situation.

So, I'd say, the presumably used double display line with "crossings" as well the way the aircrafts are guided by the airboss aren't the "cause" of the accident, though certainly a hole in the Swiss Cheese model, contributing to the chances of this accident factually happening.

The limited "below the aircraft" visibility for P-63 pilots is a nuisance, though, I don't think, this is a cause of the accident. The P-63 simply should not have been there at the flight path it followed, being able to see "below" or not. The P-63 simply violated the presumed aircraft separation, build into the (4D) display model.

An addition to the Swiss Cheese items: Probably, but only minor, since these accident items develop that fast, that a "see and avoid" simply doesn't work. (Which was in itself the reason the whole IFR airspace control model got worked out and implemented, after the 1956 Grand Canyon VFR accident).

Referring to my earlier writing, I still think, and further confirmed to me by the above items around the released audio and display flight paths' organization, the "behind the aircraft" of the P-63 pilot (with subsequent erratic P-63 flight path/profile) was the reason this accident happened. Though, the complex display configuration/guidance did provide little room for error on the part of the fighter aircraft pilots.

[172_driver]

In just a few words, the bombers do run a pretty flat circuity, with little altitude changes and the fighters do come in from higher altitude with a significantly higher RoD. This implies, that the fighters will have an altitude clearance of (roughly) 200ft with the bombers, when crossing the 1000ft display line. Not much, but there is also a separation in time.

The P-63 did hit the B-17 at (just above 500ft), while crossing the 1000ft display line. Or so to say, the P-63 was far too low at that moment, if its target had been the 500ft display line. Not to say, with the actual RoD and the heavy banking, when hitting the B-17, the P-63 would have ended up far below the 500ft display altitude, when it would have arrived at the 500ft display line (and 500ft further potentially hitting the crowd). All, when the B-17 would not have been there.


I don't know much about airshow management, other than what I have learnt from this thread and watching the Youtube videos. At no time did I hear any altitude separation being applied by the Airboss. The ADS-B data shows quite arbitrary altitudes being achieved during the course reversal (dog bone leg?). So how can you conclude there should've been an altitude separation between the fighters and bombers as they crossed path?

[Flying_Scotsman]

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/dallas/article271123437.html?fbclid=IwAR3XMp23q96sGQcc4CJHBBCmG1BLZ zuRibb4u3fJk2-eXfqWx1IpoYhjeik

TOO MUCH TALKING. That's just an awful way to run an airshow. Sorry, but that's my take having run some major displays in the UK.

[Waltzer]

TOO MUCH TALKING. That's just an awful way to run an airshow. Sorry, but that's my take having run some major displays in the UK.

Agree.
The Dallas incident is a comprehensive example of how not to do it.

UK CAP403/CAP1724:
Brief the show
Fly the show
Debrief the show

Minimal radio traffic: Call incursions or infringements.
It’s demanding enough flying the show without having to listen to all that blah.

It’s clear from the audio that calls weren’t being heard, lots of ‘say again’.

Total shambles and desperately sad.

[WideScreen]

I don't know much about airshow management, other than what I have learnt from this thread and watching the Youtube videos. At no time did I hear any altitude separation being applied by the Airboss. The ADS-B data shows quite arbitrary altitudes being achieved during the course reversal (dog bone leg?). So how can you conclude there should've been an altitude separation between the fighters and bombers as they crossed path?
Simply: The math, trigonometry.

As such, my suggestion to use paper, scissors and glue to create the flight paths of each the bombers and the fighters as a paper object and put these in 3D, to visualize that the fighter path is above the bomber path, at the 1000ft display line. Then, you can literally see, that the fighter path is not conflicting with the bombers path.

When the fighters do come in from a much higher altitude AND are expected to reach the 500ft altitude, at 500ft closer to the public, they will be higher than 500ft at the 1000ft display line (my estimate > 200ft). So, in 4D, there is no conflict between the bombers and the fighters.

The safety of this separation mechanism is unfortunately very sensitive to pilot mistakes, which happened in this 2022 Dallas situation.

[wiggy]

Simply: The math, trigonometry.

As such, my suggestion to use paper, scissors and glue to create the flight paths of each the bombers and the fighters as a paper object and put these in 3D, to visualize that the fighter path is above the bomber path, at the 1000ft display line. Then, you can literally see, that the fighter path is not conflicting with the bombers path.

When the fighters do come in from a much higher altitude AND are expected to reach the 500ft altitude, at 500ft closer to the public, they will be higher than 500ft at the 1000ft display line (my estimate > 200ft). So, in 4D, there is no conflict between the bombers and the fighters.

The safety of this separation mechanism is unfortunately very sensitive to pilot mistakes, which happened in this 2022 Dallas situation..

I’m sure you are quite possibly right but to be honest if the situation was that unforgiving to a single point failure then maybe it’s time to go back to the sort of basics Waltzer describes…KISS and all that.

[172_driver]

WideScreen,

But there were no defined points or lines in space from which you could build your geometry. The fighters happened to be higher during the course reversal, due to agility and performance I presume, but nothing (I heard) would guarantee that any single fighter wouldn't already be at 500 ft when crossing the path of the bombers?

[uxb99]

After listening to the Blancolirio audio it's seems to me very clear what happened.
A lack of a pre-defined briefing which all pilots adhere to, without deviation. An overloaded Airboss that positioned aircraft into a conflict.
I haven't listened on my airband radio at a UK airshow for a few years now but when I did the airwaves during a display were very quiet and limited to display leaders giving instructions to their team and occasionally ATC.
The audio for this show sounded confused.

[WideScreen]

WideScreen,

But there were no defined points or lines in space from which you could build your geometry. The fighters happened to be higher during the course reversal, due to agility and performance I presume, but nothing (I heard) would guarantee that any single fighter wouldn't already be at 500 ft when crossing the path of the bombers?
Yes and no, there are some figures, to at least give you an understanding of the 3D positions in time. Earlier on in this thread, there was the YT video, showing the flights paths as well as the relevant details like altitude/speed/RoD from ADSBExchange.

Of course, this is not "hard data", though when it looks like a duck, squawks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's probably a duck, unless other circumstances strongly suggest otherwise. When needed, use cross-reference data to "calibrate" the ADSBExchange data. Use the data points from that YT video, make a plot assuming the 1000ft and 500ft display lines, and you have the trigonometry.

The relevance is, that, despite the PP critics, the figures of the bombers and figures do only "cross" at the same altitude, when plotted perpendicular on the ground. And there is no crossing at the same altitude, when the plotting is, for example, perpendicular to the plane in which the fighters fly (taking into account that the "altitude" reference will change also and is then relative to the plane of the fighters). IE a translation/rotation of the reference from ground to the plane, the fighters fly in.

[172_driver]

Of course, this is not "hard data", though when it looks like a duck, squawks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's probably a duck, unless other circumstances strongly suggest otherwise. When needed, use cross-reference data to "calibrate" the ADSBExchange data. Use the data points from that YT video, make a plot assuming the 1000ft and 500ft display lines, and you have the trigonometry.

Isn't that a bit like speeding through an intersection without looking - there is only a probability I will hit someone? Sure, if you're using the data plots after it happened, you can construct something which doesn't involve two aircraft at same point in space. Or am I not following you?

Now it so happened that probability positioned two aircraft at same spot in space, at the same time, and that probability could've been reduced to almost zero by better coordination of lateral and vertical profiles to be flown. Yes, the direct cause so happened to be the P63 (or the B17, but arguably the P63 was late) was at the wrong spot at the wrong time, but there was a good chance of that happening with the way it was set up.

[ATC Watcher]

From an ATC point of view this audio is horrible to listen to .
This Airboss acts as if he is a veteran controller , but he lost it, and badly. I would like to see has an Tower ATC licence , since how long and if he was rated for that airfield.


Next nobody seems to be supervising him In such a situation , issuing instructions to the show, taking over TWR ATC control, including taxi instructions and pyro, all at the same time ? No supervisor would let his happen at the briefing stage. . There should have been a ground controller assigned prior to the show already prior to the start of the show.


Then lletting outside aircraft land during such a complex display with 500ft overflights above the runway ? Crazy.Never seen this before.
Then , during the display it was obvious that things were not working as planned and that the Airboss was losing it ( an experience controller can spot this in a few seconds) then help should have been available , i.e. giving advices, transfer aircraft to another frequency etc.. Was he really alone ?


And finally he should immediately have be relieved after the accident , and definitively not continuing issuing instructions as he did , as after seeing such accident you are 10 times more likely to make more errors.

From a display pilot and having controlled a few air shows in my former life, the briefing is gold and is the key, as Blancolorio rightly points out, here the Airboss appears to be making the plan in real time, you never do that. Not in my part of the world anyway.

I hope there will be good lessons learned from that accident. And that the fact that , as Blancolorio said, this Airboss was the son of the guy that used to do it has nothing to do with it.

[WideScreen]

Isn't that a bit like speeding through an intersection without looking - there is only a probability I will hit someone?
When there is a fly-over, one can do so.....
Sure, if you're using the data plots after it happened, you can construct something which doesn't involve two aircraft at same point in space. Or am I not following you?
Let me try again ;-)
There are 2 (tilted and bent) planes, one for the Bombers, one for the fighters in which the aircraft fly. For the area these aircrafts use, there is no overlap/crossing of the planes, so no (potential) conflict for the aircraft. The fighters are in the "upper" plane, the bombers in the lower one. At least, when you assume 2 display lines, which is now assumed, after the audio emerged.

Now it so happened that probability positioned two aircraft at same spot in space, at the same time, and that probability could've been reduced to almost zero by better coordination of lateral and vertical profiles to be flown. Yes, the direct cause so happened to be the P63 (or the B17, but arguably the P63 was late) was at the wrong spot at the wrong time, but there was a good chance of that happening with the way it was set up.
With one display line, there would be a problem, though with separate display lines for bombers and fighters, there is separation in space and time.

Of course, when it turns out with further investigations, the mechanism of 1000ft and 500ft display lines are invented on the spot and only used by part of the display aircraft, tja, things will change......

[WideScreen]

@ATC_Watcher: While I agree with all your comments, it looks like this whole show/airboss happening is fundamentally set up as a one-man-show, no separation/delegation of tasks, or whatever. Gives me the impression, this whole did grow organically, over the years, to the current chaos. Becoming more and more complex, to please a more and more demanding public. And nobody dares to say "stop, this can not continue like the way it goes", because of hurt souls, when things are changed.

Whenever references are being made like "good guys", "wonderful people", etc, I immediately get scratchy about the real professionality of the whole (organization). Far too often, these terms are being used to cover up the underlying amateurism, things arranged at the BBQ, with one or many more beers (or at least to be consumed later on).

[India Four Two]

It's several years since I have been to an airshow anywhere and more years than I care to remember since I went to one in the UK.

I would be interested to know how the "air boss" runs things at a big show in the UK, Duxford for example. Is it pretty much radio silent?

PS I have to say that if I was one of the formation leads at Dallas, I would have been tempted to call "Knock it off".

[22/04]

Can't speak for Duxford but at Old Warden the only role for the FISO on the radio is to advise pilots if the show is on time and acknowledge calls such as start up calls and radio checks. Aircraft will often call "final pass" etc. to advise that their display is completing. Aircraft occasionally make calls which help co-ordination during multiple aircraft displays.

Thankfully I have never been present at an accident so no idea what happens then. I imagine there is an accident plan. have been present at a land out when the call was simply "Gladiator landing out".

US radio practice is a bit different to the U.K. where I adhere strictly to be the CAPs (413 and 452 for me as an A/G operator). It tends to be a bit more relaxed.

[ATC Watcher]

@ widescreen : Whenever references are being made like "good guys", "wonderful people", etc, I immediately get scratchy about the real professionality of the whole (organization). Far too often, these terms are being used to cover up the underlying amateurism, things arranged at the BBQ, with one or many more beers (or at least to be consumed later on).
Yep. agree. I have no idea if that was the case here , but you might be hitting the nail here as indeed I have seen this a few times. and even been caught once in one of those . Not an air show but I was asked to come to help to tow gilders up during a major competion ( 60 gliders to lauch up within 1 hour using 4 different aircraft with different performances. All gliders to be launched in the same area at the same altitude. : It was a total mess on the day , with an older authoritarian take off "coordinator " who lost it, already during the briefing ,and later on the frequency, but he was the President of the organing club, there,and nobody dared to contradict him. After 3 launches I decided to call it a day and left. They are still mad at me in that club as I ****** up their sequence. and the result of the competition. I was told later that " we always do it like this " as some form of justification that it was OK. Tradition above safety management.

@ india 42 : ​​​​​​​I have to say that if I was one of the formation leads at Dallas, I would have been tempted to call "Knock it off".
Yep, me too. Never heard such a mess on a air display frequency before ( in Europe that is )

[GeeRam]

And that the fact that , as Blancolorio said, this Airboss was the son of the guy that used to do it has nothing to do with it.

It pretty much has everything to do with it.......that's the CAF way of doing things.

There's the correct way, and then there's the CAF way. Tragically, people have finally paid with their lives for years of doing things the CAF way.

[WHBM]

Anyone who has flown in the US, especially at airfields that have a high GA proportion, will recognise the monotone babble, and periodic shrieks, from whoever is on the other end of the radio.

Is it taught there that "Aviate - Navigate - Communicate" means that Communicate comes third ?'

[uxb99]

Can't speak for Duxford but at Old Warden the only role for the FISO on the radio is to advise pilots if the show is on time and acknowledge calls such as start up calls and radio checks. Aircraft will often call "final pass" etc. to advise that their display is completing. Aircraft occasionally make calls which help co-ordination during multiple aircraft displays.

Thankfully I have never been present at an accident so no idea what happens then. I imagine there is an accident plan. have been present at a land out when the call was simply "Gladiator landing out".

US radio practice is a bit different to the U.K. where I adhere strictly to be the CAPs (413 and 452 for me as an A/G operator). It tends to be a bit more relaxed.

UK airshows are relatively quiet. When the Mig 29's crashed at Fairford the airwaves were still pretty quiet. All I remember hearing (and it was a while ago now so forgive me) were requests from some SAR helo's offering to lift to assist and ATC.

[RatherBeFlying]

How this person came to be declared a qualified air boss is a fundamental question for the investigation.

Second is how experienced air show pilots accepted him in the role.

[Seaking74]

It's several years since I have been to an airshow anywhere and more years than I care to remember since I went to one in the UK.

I would be interested to know how the "air boss" runs things at a big show in the UK, Duxford for example. Is it pretty much radio silent?

PS I have to say that if I was one of the formation leads at Dallas, I would have been tempted to call "Knock it off".

As an aviation fan I go to RIAT every year for the 4 days and I listen to the tower on my scanner. I've never heard even a fraction of the commentary heard in this released portion of ATC comms.

[Chiefttp]

One day us lowly Americans will be as good as you guys…seriously, I’ve been on and off this website since the early 2000’s. It’s a great website, but you guys have such a superiority complex when it comes to aviation.

[22/04]

I think US culture is just different regarding ATC . Traffic density tends to be higher in the US.. There are very different interpretations of clear to land for example here and there.

having attended air shows in both places they are different too. What will happen now I am not sure in the U.S - but if it is like what happened here after the 2015 Hunter crash be prepared for a big change in terms of regulation of the shoes and the pilots flying them.

[WideScreen]

One day us lowly Americans will be as good as you guys…seriously, I’ve been on and off this website since the early 2000’s. It’s a great website, but you guys have such a superiority complex when it comes to aviation.
I am not sure, whether there is spoken about superiority here. What is spoken about is, whether the implementation of the concept of airboss is suitable for large scale events like this. The Dallas event audio does raise serious doubts about that.

Though, feel free to shoot the messenger and joint the rows of "good old fellows", having a history of brave actions and ignoring the current actuality around real professionality.

You know the good-old mandatory warning around stocks/investments ? It's applicable in more areas than only the stock-exchange.

[punkalouver]

Another thing to consider in all this radio chatter is the reality(at least in my experience and discussion with others) of poor ability of pilots to hear and therefore understand transmissions due to bad radio set-up. It is not unusual to have a warbird with garbled radios, loud static noise, noisy cockpits combined with improper fitting headsets/helmets. And the transmission from the other aircraft may be poor. Such an issue is unlikely to get fixed in the short term before the next airshow(or the end of the year). And how many organizations hav an avionics technician.

I have experienced this as recently as this past year in warbird operations. I encourage any other warbird pilots on this forum to let us know if that has been your experience too. Yet, in flying well over a hundred different transport category aircraft for commercial operations, radio reception is virtually always loud and clear.

To be honest, I found it difficult to understand what the air boss was saying much of the time(slack radio-telephony makes it even more difficult) Then there is the reality of concentration just to fly the aircraft in such a situation of formation flying or having to fly a certain pattern at an air show where there can be multiple restrictions to avoid or be punished by the FAA. It can be overwhelming.

[Chiefttp]

I’ve been involved in a few of these type of air shows (old vintage aircraft, mixed with modern military jets) I flew a demo, but I was solo and there were no other aircraft near me. The guys who fly these multiple warbird shows, like Tora,Tora, Tora, design them to look like chaos to the crowd, but are actually strictly choreographed and deconflicted. The Briefings I attended were professional, detailed and rivaled most military briefings.
The big difference in this event is, as most of you remarked, this Airboss, seemed like he was directing the show “on the fly” . I agree there was a lot of extraneous talking and confusion. The Airboss’s I dealt with did talk more than most, but that’s because the shows are pretty complex with a lot of aircraft in the same slice of airspace. At no time were we ever confused or unsure of our plan. The CAF folks are a small community who know each other very well. The P-63 pilot had 30,000 hours! And had been flying these warbirds for decades with no issues. The mix of familiarity, complacency, and the ill advised need to change the plan and shift the bombers and fighters paths, for reasons I don’t understand, led to this accident. When I participated in similar shows, we knew the plan.and flew the plan…period.

[DogTailRed2]

NTSB Docket - Docket Management System (https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=106276#)

[Waltzer]

I’ve been involved in a few of these type of air shows (old vintage aircraft, mixed with modern military jets) I flew a demo, but I was solo and there were no other aircraft near me. The guys who fly these multiple warbird shows, like Tora,Tora, Tora, design them to look like chaos to the crowd, but are actually strictly choreographed and deconflicted. The Briefings I attended were professional, detailed and rivaled most military briefings.
The big difference in this event is, as most of you remarked, this Airboss, seemed like he was directing the show “on the fly” . I agree there was a lot of extraneous talking and confusion. The Airboss’s I dealt with did talk more than most, but that’s because the shows are pretty complex with a lot of aircraft in the same slice of airspace. At no time were we ever confused or unsure of our plan. The CAF folks are a small community who know each other very well. The P-63 pilot had 30,000 hours! And had been flying these warbirds for decades with no issues. The mix of familiarity, complacency, and the ill advised need to change the plan and shift the bombers and fighters paths, for reasons I don’t understand, led to this accident. When I participated in similar shows, we knew the plan.and flew the plan…period.


P-63 pilot had 108 hours on type with 2.8 hours in the previous 90 days.

[DogTailRed2]

In my opinion the dynamic management of the aircraft will be the factor here. Adding random changes to a display is always going to introduce potential for error. Far safer to plan out a display, brief for and fly it. Telling aircraft to cross paths with other aircraft seems daft.