Dallas air show crash

[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.

[treadigraph]

Sadly it's very bad news... ASN reports possible collision with a P-51 or P-63...

Edit: does appear to have been a collision with a P-63, Wings Over Dallas Airshow...

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/301048

[skadi]

Definitely mid-air:
RIP

https://twitter.com/WarMonitors/status/1591522856063873025?t=2rc6eeh293IU4nyJHEvizA&s=19

skadi

[uxb99]

Damn. That's shocking and very sad.
Here is a video from the Daily Mail. Approach with caution. The collision is probably the worst I have ever seen. Terrible, simply terrible.
Planes crash in mid-air at Wings Over Dallas event, sending debris flying | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11420933/Planes-crash-mid-air-Wings-Dallas-event-sending-debris-flying.html)
RIP all involved.
Very sad day :-(

[Lake1952]

Reading on other sites that there are survivors!

[Tech Guy]

Strange how the Mail say the B17 collided with the Kingcobra. Looks totally the other way around.

Horific accident I am sure there will be repurcussions.

[uxb99]

Horific accident I am sure there will be repurcussions.

More ammunition for those that want air shows banned. However, seeing this kind of accident, they do have a point. Totally unnecessary and preventable.

[drichard]

https://9gag.com/gag/aVbDvDn?ref=android
Apologies for the website, video shows the collision and crash

[tdracer]

Holly CRAP! What was that Kingcobra pilot thinking? That almost looks intentional!

[ehwatezedoing]

Strange how the Mail say the B17 collided with the Kingcobra. Looks totally the other way around.

No kidding, some of those videos if not in colour or date stamped could literally pass like a Kamikaze attack on a B-17 during WWII.
In reality, under the cowl blind spot of the P-63! How he ended up in this position will be the question.

[212man]

Reading on other sites that there are survivors!
You seriously think so?

[KRviator]

You seriously think so?I don't, but would love to be proven otherwise. Pilots and passengers have occasionally survived far worse.

[bnt]

Report (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2022/11/12/plane-crash-reported-during-air-show-at-dallas-executive-airport/) in the Dallas Morning News suggests that debris has landed on a highway. No news of injuries etc. yet, but agree it looks really bad. No time for anyone to eject, if that was even possible.

[212man]

Report (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2022/11/12/plane-crash-reported-during-air-show-at-dallas-executive-airport/) in the Dallas Morning News suggests that debris has landed on a highway. No news of injuries etc. yet, but agree it looks really bad. No time for anyone to eject, if that was even possible.
Errr, no - neither aircraft had ejection seats! That’s not to say some crew may have been ejected, looking at the videos.

[treadigraph]

Collision looks to have occurred more or less over the threshold of 31 - "light" debris seems to be scattered between the runway end and Highway 67, but the majority is on airport property I'd think. As ehwatezedoing says, the P-63 pilot seems to have been utterly unsighted while curving in, there were two fighters preceding, probably P-51s, who appeared to be following the runway heading, ahead and to the left of the B-17.

[sycamore]

In one of the videos there is an aircraft (possibly a P51) about half a mile ahead of the B-17,that the Cobra pilot may have been trying to join on,judging by his speed.

Another reminder of the very `close shave` between the 2 Mustangs at Duxford a few years ago,joining on the B-17;you have to see where all the aircraft are,and keep them in sight all the time..if you can`t,then f*** off out...
,

[uxb99]

Errr, no - neither aircraft had ejection seats! That’s not to say some crew may have been ejected, looking at the videos.

While I think it's very unlikely to survive such an incident if thrown clear a chute may deploy, or if inside the aircraft parts can on occasion float to earth gently.
Looking at the videos doesn't look at all survivable but happy to be proved wrong.

[212man]

While I think it's very unlikely to survive such an incident if thrown clear a chute may deploy, or if inside the aircraft parts can on occasion float to earth gently.
Looking at the videos doesn't look at all survivable but happy to be proved wrong.
I’m pretty sure you’re not going to be proved wrong

[LowObservable]

Holly CRAP! What was that Kingcobra pilot thinking? That almost looks intentional!

My reaction too (although I stop short of "intentional"). From one video that shows a wider angle, it looks as a number of aircraft including the B-17 were on a loose left-hand circuit for passes in front of the crowd line. Then the P-63 appears in frame, apparently well inside the circuit and at a higher speed, and converges on the bomber in a pursuit curve, pulling hard left at the last moment. Weird. Never seen anything like it.

[212man]

My reaction too (although I stop short of "intentional")

I agree, but looks like criminal negligence

[auldlassie]

Crash at Dallas airshow. Graphic footage all over twitter and media which I am not going to attach. A P-63 Kingcobra collides with a B17 bomber, the Kingcobra disintegrates and the B17 splits in 2 and hits the ground in a fireball. All over very quickly. Utterly terrible to watch. Condolences to families of everyone involved.

Seems to be already causing further controversy about air shows and old planes. Can I ask how others here feel about airshows and old planes? Some here may even have participated as these shows. My grandfather took me to quite a few as a child. Never saw an accident and they seemed days of great excitement to me as a kid, but I'd quickly admit to not knowing much about current day airshows at all , and I've no idea how most people on here would feel about them now.

[unmanned_droid]

It may later be proven that the P-63 was not controllable, but at the moment it doesn't look like the aircraft had much of anything to do with it - and there's a thread in close calls. Probably best to keep discussion to that thread.

[NutLoose]

Watching it from the rear I doubt the pilot could see the B17 as his nose and wings would be masking it… absolutely tragic :(

film from the rear of the B17 ( some foul language )

https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1591532648509349888

https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1591532648509349888

[NutLoose]

There are aerial pictures of the wreckage, see

https://www.fox4news.com/news/dallas-executive-airport-crash

[Two's in]

In the left hand turn, with that amount of bank, the P-63 was blind to anything outside of his turn radius. He wouldn't have seen the B-17 until immediately before he impacted at the trailing edge of the wing/fuselage join and sliced the tail off the B-17. With no tail, the bomber just nose dived in. It was all over for everyone in less than a couple of seconds, the P-63 was probably reduced to debris after the impact.

The rules of the air dictate that when converging with an aircraft from the right, you give way to the right (the B-17) but of course, that assumes you know there is something there in the first place. It was the P-63s pilot's responsibility to clear the turn, but what was the ATC status in all this? Was there an Air Show frequency? Was there positive control of the display, had it been rehearsed and briefed to a display coordinator? Or was it "turn up and give us a show?". The real tragedy is that when the accident report is finalized, it will not contain a single new element that couldn't have been cut and paste from many of the previous Air Show collisions.

[Carbon Bootprint]

Both planes were reportedly based in Houston. A Commemorative Air Force spokesperson stated five persons were believed to have been aboard the B-17 and one aboard the P-63. There were no paying pax aboard the B-17 during the display.

Two aircraft out of Houston collide at Dallas Air Show (https://www.click2houston.com/news/national/2022/11/12/federal-aviation-administration-says-two-aircrafts-have-collided-at-air-show-in-dallas-condition-of-pilots-unknown/) - KPRC-TV Houston

[uxb99]

Different angle, different perspective. Taxying Stearman was lucky.
Jason Whitely on Twitter: "#BREAKING: New angle of the mid-air collision obtained by @WFAA shows B-17 and other aircraft flying formations at #WingsOverDallas at 1:21p today, when it was hit by a P-63 and fell to the ground over the airfield at Dallas Executive Airport (RBD). https://t.co/6NAS93b3re" / Twitter

[San Diego kid]

I can’t believe the Cobra pilot was coming in that fast with so many planes around him. Like he was the only one in that airspace.
Sad loss in lives a planes, thats for sure.

[H Peacock]

Either dreadfully briefed and/or an amazingly careless bit of flying of the P63!

[fdr]

It may later be proven that the P-63 was not controllable, but at the moment it doesn't look like the aircraft had much of anything to do with it - and there's a thread in close calls. Probably best to keep discussion to that thread.

The P-63 is following pilot input immediately before the impact, I doubt that there was a control issue prior to impact.

Watching it from the rear I doubt the pilot could see the B17 as his nose and wings would be masking it… absolutely tragic :(
film from the rear of the B17 ( some foul language )
https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1591532648509349888

GLOC is unlikely but not impossible.
A medical event is always possible but that would tend to result in lowering g loads, and that would cause the flight path to degrade in a high bank turn, there is no onset of a descent part way through the turn. Keeping a high bank and reducing g reduces the rate of turn and that is not obviously evident, so the plane is likely to be under closed loop pilotage up to impact.
assuming that this was accidental, then the P-63 seems to be working towards a rejoin of the P-51 and other preceding little friends, and that puts the line of sight for the pilot of the P-63 above his head, and to the left, well away from Texas Raider's. I would think that target fixation on the rejoin of relatively hard to see aircraft against the ground background may have distracted the P-63 pilot from his basic requirement to keep clear of what should be obvious traffic that he/she is overtaking.

This hints to a bad set up of flight paths, whether preflight or inflight variation from plan. Would be interesting to know the pilots experience in flying mixed formations and in formation flying, rejoins etc.

A brutally bad day. It is part of the heritage to keep the memory alive of what prior generations did, these airshows are worthy of respect and continuation. Lets not do this particular evolution again.


2's In, you are correct. I assumed the P63 was faster than the B-17, there is not much difference in speed, and post #37 shows that the P63 was belly up to the B17 for at least the last 5-6 seconds. To see the traffic, the speed difference would need to be higher.

[9 lives]

This is so sad. One of the things which makes it sad is the apparent appetite of audiences and pilots to see historically valuable flying antiques flown aggressively. Can we not just be content with seeing these magnificent airplanes simply fly at all, without having to see them maneuvered in a way which increases risk so much? We pilots should not need to be regulated into gentle flying, it should be pride and instinct to fly antiques with extra care and caution, considering their historical value. For the few antique airplanes I have flown, it's always been "fly it gently, as though it's irreplaceable"!

Absolutely nothing in our industry gets better because an aggressive pilot flies any aircraft and collides with another aircraft, or the ground, it's bad all the way around. I worry that some pilots are not afraid of f**king up enough to just fly it gently!

When I worked with a well known US airplane restorer, formation flying (and thus air to air photography with their airplanes) was forbidden. This was because the progenitor of the excellent restoration process and STC for these airplanes was killed in an air to air with one of his own airplanes. I saw their point! Just fly the plane, forget the showing off!

[SASless]

They really are irreplaceable.....especially the people in them when they are lost.

[Longtimer]

They really are irreplaceable.....especially the people in them when they are lost.
Irreplaceable, the aircraft could be rebuilt / replicated, not so the people. Sad.

[zac21]

Holly CRAP! What was that Kingcobra pilot thinking? That almost looks intentional!

In total agreement.

[Flying Binghi]

A walk around of the accident P-63:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ruoDK2MlAlg

[Flying Binghi]

The pre display briefing of the 2021 show. Briefing starts at the 5.25 mark:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6ecNGIcOtHY

[Flying Binghi]

A longer view of a posted video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfz7eFSX_FU

[Bobby G]

Two's in - You're absolutely tight, he was blind in the turn. I can answer the rest of your questions about airshow coordination as I have been part of flying in that CAF show in the past myself. No ATC, control is with the airboss and there has been an extensive morning briefing maybe lasting an hour or more on what looks like madness but is actually a well choreographed show and all you hear during this performance is the airboss making sure everybody is doing what was briefed, he's talking non-stop for 20 minutes giving directions. I've been in this with 63 other airplanes. There are groups of trainers, fighters, bombers and cargos that work together. But... we're only human and there will always be one pilot out of synch or just "not get it".

[pattern_is_full]

Professional Pilots content - CNN quotes Allied Pilots Association as saying two of the B-17 crew were retirees from American Airlines.

Article gives the names, for those with a desire to know them. Not my place to publicize them here.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/12/us/dallas-air-show-collision

[fighterflyer]

In the left hand turn, with that amount of bank, the P-63 was blind to anything outside of his turn radius. He wouldn't have seen the B-17 until immediately before he impacted at the trailing edge of the wing/fuselage join and sliced the tail off the B-17. With no tail, the bomber just nose dived in. It was all over for everyone in less than a couple of seconds, the P-63 was probably reduced to debris after the impact.

The rules of the air dictate that when converging with an aircraft from the right, you give way to the right (the B-17) but of course, that assumes you know there is something there in the first place. It was the P-63s pilot's responsibility to clear the turn, but what was the ATC status in all this? Was there an Air Show frequency? Was there positive control of the display, had it been rehearsed and briefed to a display coordinator? Or was it "turn up and give us a show?". The real tragedy is that when the accident report is finalized, it will not contain a single new element that couldn't have been cut and paste from many of the previous Air Show collisions.

I am wondering if the P-63 might've had a mechanical problem or even pilot medical event? My thinking:
1 - This group does a lot of shows
2 - Pilot knew there was a B-17 in the air, wouldn't he have made some attempt to know where all his fellow flyers were at any given time?
3 - The plane seems to be going kind of fast and from certain angles I've watched, is also losing altitude pretty fast.
4 - It just looks out of control to me.

Caveat - I'm not a pilot, but my son is a fighter pilot for the USAF.

[Arm out the window]

I've been in this with 63 other airplanes. There are groups of trainers, fighters, bombers and cargos that work together. But... we're only human and there will always be one pilot out of synch or just "not get it".

Obviously very hard to know exactly what separation provisions had been planned, either at the briefing or directly from the Air Boss at the time - with your experience at that same venue, Bobby G, what would they have been trying to achieve, do you think? From the video it looked like three fighters at higher speed passing closer to the crowd, and the B17 and another larger machine spaced further out, moving slower?

The P63 comes in fast, looks like he's got his attention on the fighters ahead but has inadvertently set up a greater turn radius than them, which sadly puts him in the same place in the sky as the B17. As Two's In says, he's belly up and unlikely to have been able to see the B17 in the seconds leading up to the midair. Would there have been a requirement (briefing or direct via radio) for the fighters to have sighted the bombers and avoid them laterally, i.e. pass clear, closer to the crowd? (which would make a lot of sense with the differing speeds)

RIP fellow aviators.

[treadigraph]

From the video it looked like three fighters at higher speed passing closer to the crowd, and the B17 and another larger machine spaced further out, moving slower?


B-17, B-24 and a B-25 were closer to the crowd line, more or less over the runway, the P-51s looked to be south of the runway. They were all performing tear drop style reversals, tho the P-63 doesn't show up on ADSB. Speeds seem to have been around 150-200kts,

As UXB99 says, the Stearman rolling out on the runway was probably a few seconds clear of being amongst some of the debris. The B-29 can be seen awaiting clearance onto the runway too.

[unmanned_droid]

The P-63 is following pilot input immediately before the impact, I doubt that there was a control issue prior to impact.


GLOC is unlikely but not impossible.
A medical event is always possible but that would tend to result in lowering g loads, and that would cause the flight path to degrade in a high bank turn, there is no onset of a descent part way through the turn. Keeping a high bank and reducing g reduces the rate of turn and that is not obviously evident, so the plane is likely to be under closed loop pilotage up to impact.
assuming that this was accidental, then the P-63 seems to be working towards a rejoin of the P-51 and other preceding little friends, and that puts the line of sight for the pilot of the P-63 above his head, and to the left, well away from Texas Raider's. I would think that target fixation on the rejoin of relatively hard to see aircraft against the ground background may have distracted the P-63 pilot from his basic requirement to keep clear of what should be obvious traffic that he/she is overtaking.

This hints to a bad set up of flight paths, whether preflight or inflight variation from plan. Would be interesting to know the pilots experience in flying mixed formations and in formation flying, rejoins etc.

A brutally bad day. It is part of the heritage to keep the memory alive of what prior generations did, these airshows are worthy of respect and continuation. Lets not do this particular evolution again.


2's In, you are correct. I assumed the P63 was faster than the B-17, there is not much difference in speed, and post #37 shows that the P63 was belly up to the B17 for at least the last 5-6 seconds. To see the traffic, the speed difference would need to be higher.

My comment is now somewhat out of context after merging with this thread (i.e. replying to the previous post). I don't think there was a problem with the aircraft, so, calls to ground old types due to this accident seem somewhat baseless.

[beamer]

First and foremost a tragedy for the families of those who lost their lives.

Two more historic aircraft to be added to the long, long list of lost aeroplanes in avoidable accidents. No doubt the airshow brigade will be saying that life is a risk and it’s all worthwhile in the name of entertainment.

Very sad

[uxb99]

First and foremost a tragedy for the families of those who lost their lives.

Two more historic aircraft to be added to the long, long list of lost aeroplanes in avoidable accidents. No doubt the airshow brigade will be saying that life is a risk and it’s all worthwhile in the name of entertainment.

Very sad

It's a catch 22. The desire to fly these aircraft has helped to preserve them. Most would have gone to the scrap man long ago if that desire was not there.
If you fly them, you risk crashing them.
I feel sad for the operators and crews who didn't want to see aircraft lost in this way and the families for loosing loved ones.
A very quiet day in the hangar today.

[Flying Binghi]

…

assuming that this was accidental, then the P-63 seems to be working towards a rejoin of the P-51 and other preceding little friends, and that puts the line of sight for the pilot of the P-63 above his head, and to the left, well away from Texas Raider's. I would think that target fixation on the rejoin of relatively hard to see aircraft against the ground background may have distracted the P-63 pilot from his basic requirement to keep clear of what should be obvious traffic that he/she is overtaking.

…



Looks to be a strong possibility. Looking at the satellite view of the likely “background” the P-63 driver would have seen behind the B-17 shows a dark green wooded area.

Looking at the curving closure approach of the P-63 towards the B-17 may have presented the B-17 as almost stationary and ‘invisible’ to the P-63.


I base my thoughts on this video apparently taken from “Square 67 Shopping Center 6210 US 67 Frontage Rd Dallas, TX 75237”


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfz7eFSX_FU

[cyflyer]

From this video clip, what was the plane just landed, taxying, that just gets missed by the falling B17 ? He was very lucky...

https://twitter.com/i/status/1591541681798668291

[finestkind]

T

When I worked with a well known US airplane restorer, formation flying (and thus air to air photography with their airplanes) was forbidden. This was because the progenitor of the excellent restoration process and STC for these airplanes was killed in an air to air with one of his own airplanes. I saw their point! Just fly the plane, forget the showing off!

You may as well just have a static display.

It appears to be a loss of SA.

[Mechta]

With the benefit of eighty plus years of technological progress since these aircraft first flew and given the frequency of collisions both on the ground and in the air with these long-nosed low wing aircraft, research into the possible benefits of enhancing situational awareness with fin, belly and wingtip cameras plus something like FLARM has got to be worth a look, if we want to continue seeing historic aircraft flying together.

[medod]

I wonder what the separation rules were; bombers one side of the runway, fighters the other? Different altitudes?

Does each aircraft make a single pass or multiple in this display?

Lots of videos from different angles here ( https://twitter.com/shanermurph/status/1591522679336890369?s=61&t=ud5CZX_0SfqM0b6uV4DflA ). Consider if you want to see before looking.

edit: not sure link is appearing.

[XV490]

The tragedy affords an extra layer of tribute to this morning's remembrance event at the former 381st Bomb Group memorial at Ridgewell airfield in the UK.

[Low average]

You may as well just have a static display.

It appears to be a loss of SA.
My condolences. A terrible accident and I would have to agree with finestkind that loss of SA looks probable.

Either a formation join gone badly wrong, or the fighter, being belly-up in the turn, lost track of where the bomber was. Less likely, but pilot incapacitation is also a possibility.

I think formation training, experience and recency would be one of the first things the investigators will look at. A terrible loss and I hope the hard lessons can be learned without the FAA choosing the easy path of bans/boring displays like we've done in Europe.

[WHBM]

Doubtless like many here, I recall the massed pass at the end of Duxford's Flying Legends. Impressive. All assembled well out over the countryside, and flying past in a steady formation, which took a considerable amount of briefing.

In contrast, looking at shots of Dallas, this seems to have been a ragged and high speed formation, in a constant left turn, done over a city. The accident aircraft were well up in the sequence, with many others being visible in various degrees of turn and spacing just behind them. Quite how someone in a close formation could even contemplate being in a 45-degree banked turn, unlikely to have been briefed, just seems extraordinary.

[uxb99]

Looks to be a strong possibility. Looking at the satellite view of the likely “background” the P-63 driver would have seen behind the B-17 shows a dark green wooded area.

That is one of the hazards of flying these aircraft close to the ground. They are designed not to be seen. However, it's not the not seeing that's the problem in my opinion. Aircraft of differing speeds and routines should be separated by altitude and distance. If that is maintained, then there is no opportunity for collision. Like all accidents there will be multiple things at play here that all conspired to cause the conflict.

[AN2 Driver]

Doubtless like many here, I recall the massed pass at the end of Duxford's Flying Legends. Impressive. All assembled well out over the countryside, and flying past in a steady formation, which took a considerable amount of briefing.

In contrast, looking at shots of Dallas, this seems to have been a ragged and high speed formation, in a constant left turn, done over a city. The accident aircraft were well up in the sequence, with many others being visible in various degrees of turn and spacing just behind them. Quite how someone in a close formation could even contemplate being in a 45-degree banked turn, unlikely to have been briefed, just seems extraordinary.

What I read somewhere else said by a pilot who appears to ave taken part in earlier shows is that the bombers are supposed to fly on one side of or over the runway, while smaller planes are to stay to the South of the runway. This would make sense. Given that this airshow has been going on for many years without any incident and given the CAF's track record, this appears to be a quite well planned and briefed air show.

Obviously there will be lots of people shouting for banning air shows totally, as it always happens after such tragic events. Instead, I suppose the folks in charge will look at this very carefully as the professionals they are will draw their conclusions how to do better in avoidance next time. The CAF have been instrumental in keeping these planes flying. I do vividly recall many times Iˆve read articles by former and current members about how careful they are, people like John Deakin or Randy Sohn discussing this on various platforms.

As sad as this event is, as long as there is one airplane in the air there is a risk of an accident. We, as professionals, are in a never ending learning process on how to avoid them and the safety record of aviation today as compared to the "old days" speaks for itself.

[RichardJones]

That's the big negative with airshow flying. If there is a screw up, it seen by millions. There is no dignity in that whatsoever.
May their souls, R.I.P.

[skadi]

B-17, B-24 and a B-25 were closer to the crowd line, more or less over the runway, the P-51s looked to be south of the runway. They were all performing tear drop style reversals, tho the P-63 doesn't show up on ADSB. Speeds seem to have been around 150-200kts,

This is the track of the P63 on ADSB
Pretty fast and almost intercepting RWY centerline instead of staying south

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1594x1926/p63_7d25bef513fb338473e681a02fc9b994c9b73932.jpg

skadi

[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.

[LowObservable]

This is the track of the P63 on ADSB
Pretty fast and almost intercepting RWY centerline instead of staying south

38 seconds to descend from a sustained ~1500-1600 feet and 155-170 knots to a final of 215 knots and 550 feet, with turn such that he could not see outside it? In a sky full of metal?

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Related to me by someone connected to the airshow performance:

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.

Believing that it was, and that the bombers were clear of the runway centreline, Airboss cleared fighters to come down into the bomber block.

P-63 pilot did not expect traffic on the runway centreline and was looking left, into the turn, when the collision occurred.

[LowObservable]

Believing that it was [clear], and that the bombers were clear of the runway centreline, Airboss cleared fighters to come down into the bomber block..

From the crowd-line perspective, it's understandably challenging to estimate horizontal range. But that means being careful when making those calls in Mk 1 eyeball.

P-63 pilot did not expect traffic on the runway centreline and was looking left, into the turn, when the collision occurred.

Wouldn't you want to have sight on the bombers before you started down and accelerating?

[auldlassie]

Seems indeed like a loss of SA. A dreadful accident.
For those who comment that this accident seems intentional (a few here and many on other media), I'd suggest we consider Hanlon's Razor , as explained on Model Thinker's website -"NOT MALICE, HUMANS.

Hanlon’s Razor states: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by neglect, ignorance or incompetence. Many quotes of this model focus on ‘stupidity’, which it could be argued gives it an arrogant twist — I find the broader interpretation more useful.

When we are slighted or ignored, it’s all too easy to assume malicious intent, all the while forgetting how many times we have treated others in a similar way. In reality, people are as neglectful, distracted, tired, misunderstanding, and incompetent as us. It is rarely the case that they are malicious."

[9 lives]

In reality, people are as neglectful, distracted, tired, misunderstanding, and incompetent as us. It is rarely the case that they are malicious."

Agreed. With a very very few, terrifying exceptions, I don't expect that a pilot ever takes off with the intent to have an accident, much less cause injury nor death. It's an accident, that's why they call them that! Very sadly, this could appear to be intentional, I'm absolutely willing to believe that's the furthest from reality, it just happens to look that way.

We pilots must use our skill, and recollection of past bad events, to actively prevent to accumulation of minor errors which become a serious event. When things get busy, distracted, loss of situational awareness, I shift my mind down a gear, not up, What can I do to unload the situation at this moment? It's really tough, but sometimes it's better to abandon the maneuver, and follow a planned escape path, than to tighten the turn to try to keep up/catch up. I don't want point a finger, that doesn't help. I would like to recognize an opportunity to reduce risk; have airshows, display with pride, let the generations appreciate historical flight - with wide formations if any, and the least maneuvering needed just to make it happen. Simply flying these proud antique airplanes is all the showing off that is needed, aggressive maneuvering during the display doesn't make the showing off any better.

[fdr]

Using just the first images I considered that the P-63 had to have a high overtake V over the B-17, the images looked like that... and that would have placed the B-17 higher in the screen of the P-63, which would have supported the search by the pilot being towards the further forward P-51. 2's up suggested otherwise, and that needed a lower rate of closure, and the later aft aspect video shows that to have been the case. Once established in the turn the P-63 would not have had sight of the B-17 until around 0.2 of a second before impact, the accident was unavoidable once the turn had been commenced. The P-63's relative velocity to the B-17 was not a high overtake rate at all.

humble apologies.

RIP guys, sad day all round

[treadigraph]

The ADSB data seems to suggest the B-17 was at around 165kts, the P-63 in Skadi's image above shows 215kts.

[ATC Watcher]

Very sad day . I have been ATC controlling a few airshows in a past life, now organizing some and flying in them in small SEP aircraft , not high-performance warbirds, but the routine and procedures are the same for as long as I can remember (+/- 50 years ) I have also been in the TWR on OSH during the show a few times and it is basically the same as we do in Europe.

ATC is not involved in an airshow during the show itself, just clearing the airspace., and watching out for eventual intruders. During the show itself the responsibility is with a show coordinator, also called Director, or Air Boss in the US. There is an extremely strict time planning and long briefings beforehand. During the performance the frequency is clear left for coordination between the aircraft., Responsibility for separation is strictly with the pilots performing themselves.

During my experience the most ckock-ups I have witnessed in multi aircraft performances where nearly always of 3 kinds, : either an aircraft is too late and speeds up to catch and try to re-enter a formation at high speed from an unusual angle, or when a replacement pilot is taking over at last minute with little pre-show training time , ,. the last one is when one of the aircraft is not where it was supposed to be at the right time . Sometimes a combination of those.
I am not saying this is what happened here, but the speed at which the P-63 tries to rejoin the formation makes me think it is again one of those. .
The investigation will (perhaps) infirm or confirm which one it is but. flying a demo in an airshow always carries a much higher risk..
Again, a very sad. day for the airshow community,

[WHBM]

B-17 apparently being flown by retired American Airlines captains.

[Flying_Scotsman]

If the "Air Boss" is talking continuously for 20 minutes then there is something VERY wrong with the plan! The plan should be such that there is little, if any, talking needed to coordinate, and that plan should be sufficiently well briefed and "walked through" to ensure everyone understands their part in it. If the successful completion of any display item requires that amount of talking then it is a bad plan.

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?

[No longer ATC]

If the "Air Boss" is talking continuously for 20 minutes then there is something VERY wrong with the plan! The plan should be such that there is little, if any, talking needed to coordinate, and that plan should be sufficiently well briefed and "walked through" to ensure everyone understands their part in it. If the successful completion of any display item requires that amount of talking then it is a bad plan.

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?

As a birthday treat, my husband rented B17G "Sentimental Journey" from the CAF for a ride round Arizona... they asked if it would be ok to fill the empty seats with volunteers from their museum, so the extra pax may have been volunteer staff having a jolly?
So sorry to see this .RIP guys x

[LowandSlow1]

Related to me by someone connected to the airshow performance:

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.

Believing that it was, and that the bombers were clear of the runway centreline, Airboss cleared fighters to come down into the bomber block.

P-63 pilot did not expect traffic on the runway centreline and was looking left, into the turn, when the collision occurred.


Where would the Airboss typically post himself during the air show?

And how was it he thought the bombers were clear of the runway centerline when it’s obvious from multiple video angles that it wasn’t clear?

[Bergerie1]

Here is an informed and respectful video about this tragic accident making an initial analysis on what might have happened:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sceufd1Xutc

[uxb99]

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.


Something I have noticed with the tightening of regulations in the UK is that aircraft groups, formations or singletons do not cross into other groups, formations, singletons flight area. They keep their separation whether it be altitude or distance.
You may have a high-altitude component that keeps within a tighter radius of the airfield with a lower component using a wider radius. As long as everyone keeps to that rule it seems to work without any conflicts.



B-17 apparently being flown by retired American Airlines captains.
A lot of warbirds are flown by current or retired airline pilots. A lot of those pilots also have prior military experience.

[SQUAWKIDENT]

In contrast, looking at shots of Dallas, this seems to have been a ragged and high speed formation

Those are my initial thoughts as well. Some of that pre-accident footage reminded me of Reno.

[roscoe1]

My father and his best childhood friend both enlisted in the Army Airforce when WWII began. As may still be customary, when they graduated from flight school there was an airshow that families were allowed to attend at the base in Florida. Both men had their parents in attendance. Sadly during the flybys there was a mid air collision between 2 AT-6s and his friend and another pilot were killed in front of the crowd. My brother bears his name as a middle name. That was war time. My dad went on to be a B17 pilot and saw many more tragic mid air incidents the European theater and time as an IP. Perhaps smaller groups for fly-by display, similar performance within the grouping and I hope they de- brief with ruthlessness after any performance and that deviations result in remedial training or revocation/ suspension of privileges. If you are going to play Air Force you'd probably be wise to stick closer to how they do it.

[auldlassie]

B-17 apparently being flown by retired American Airlines captains.

I read that the pilot of the P63 was a Continental/United airlines pilot. I see that 5 of the 6 killed have been named online, albeit unofficially.

[auldlassie]

Another video from an entirely different viewpoint of the crash, no sure how to post it here, but it is on the Twitter feed of Emile Sloan @sloan_86333. Hope that is allowed. Very graphic of course. If anyone else knows how to add this link correctly, please do. Have to say I don't see the need for Sloan's comment, but the video itself might add to our understanding of what happened, as it is a very different angle -front on.

[Contact Approach]

Another video from an entirely different viewpoint of the crash, no sure how to post it here, but it is on the Twitter feed of Emile Sloan @sloan_86333. Hope that is allowed. Very graphic of course. If anyone else knows how to add this link correctly, please do. Have to say I don't see the need for Sloan's comment, but the video itself might add to our understanding of what happened, as it is a very different angle -front on.

https://twitter.com/sloan_86333/status/1591833218617323520?s=46&t=0Qgua-Aq-dzpMlWoarRLRg

[LowObservable]

Most likely, this will turn out like so many reports: showing weaknesses and omissions both by individuals on Nov 12. 2022, and in how the management and direction of mass air displays have evolved over the decades. In that time, the number and variety of flying WW2 aircraft has increased, while their pilots and crews have changed. Even in the 80s, people who flew these aircraft in combat were in their 60s, fit to fly, and accounted for a good number of historic-airplane pilots.

I do recall, however, talking in the 1990s to the boss of a USAF lab at Holloman, that specialized in oxygen-related safety issues (I think it had been set up after Apollo 1) and provided outreach and help to industry and government users. He said that a common response from a company/operation that had suffered an oxygen-fire accident was "but, we've done it that way for years". To which the investigators who reviewed the incident would respond: "Well, you were lucky all this time."

I keep remembering that line today,

[auldlassie]

Thank you Contact Approach!

[Bobby G]

If the "Air Boss" is talking continuously for 20 minutes then there is something VERY wrong with the plan! The plan should be such that there is little, if any, talking needed to coordinate, and that plan should be sufficiently well briefed and "walked through" to ensure everyone understands their part in it. If the successful completion of any display item requires that amount of talking then it is a bad plan.

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?
The way they justify that minimum crew is 5, is to add "safety observers" to the crew. This has been an ongoing conversation for over 20 years. But hard to defend. The FAA has long contended that only essential personnel should be on board so this accident will have lots of consequences.

[uxb99]

The way they justify that minimum crew is 5, is to add "safety observers" to the crew. This has been an ongoing conversation for over 20 years. But hard to defend. The FAA has long contended that only essential personnel should be on board so this accident will have lots of consequences.
Does it matter who is on board providing they are not fare paying passengers and understand the risks? It almost makes the essential crew sound expendable.

[Bobby G]

If the "Air Boss" is talking continuously for 20 minutes then there is something VERY wrong with the plan! The plan should be such that there is little, if any, talking needed to coordinate, and that plan should be sufficiently well briefed and "walked through" to ensure everyone understands their part in it. If the successful completion of any display item requires that amount of talking then it is a bad plan.

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?
The way they justify the minimum crew of 5, is to add "safety observers" to the crew. This has been an ongoing conversation for over 20 years. But hard to defend. The FAA has long contended that only essential personnel should be on board so this accident will have lots of consequences.
How it works is that this is essentially several airshows in one. The briefing determines a group of trainers, fighters, bombers and cargos. Each of these groups flies pre-determined patterns. For instance, the bombers make left hand patterns with 400ft passes down the runway centerline while the fighters fly opposite passes down the left side of the runway in left hand patterns at 200 ft. While it looks like total mayhem, those are two shows in one. Although the separation is minimal, it is there. While the show is ongoing, pilots will make mistakes or patterns need to be readjusted and this is where the air boss comes in. There are contingency plans in case something goes haywire and airplanes miss passes or screw up patterns. Then they get sent away to a predetermined visual point on the ground at a certain altitude until things are sorted out and the air boss calls them in again. In this case, obviously someone was in the wrong place at the wrong time and coordination was lost before the air boss could correct it, or the pilot was not following his directions. As crazy as it may seem, that dark colored B17 is very hard to see when it is flying slightly below the horizon. From the airshow's point of view, they well know how this came about as one of the two airplanes was out of position.

[Bobby G]

Does it matter who is on board providing they are not fare paying passengers and understand the risks? It almost makes the essential crew sound expendable.
Yes it does matter. The crew has been assigned way before the airshow and through the hierarchy within the wing it is determined which qualified person will be a flight engineer or observer. Even though the airplane did not originally have a flight engineer, it is customary for a crew chief to act as one. That person will be on the jumpseat and help out with power settings and keeps an eye mainly on engine gauges since the pilots will be VERY busy with their eyes outside the cockpit and verifying instructions from the air boss with each other. There will be many people within the wing chomping at the bit to be on the airplane during the show. They can be a loadmaster or another crew member normally assigned to this B-17. Absolutely NO paying passengers, you must have proper credentials.

[treadigraph]

For instance, the bombers make left hand patterns with 400ft passes down the runway centerline while the fighters fly opposite passes down the left side of the runway in left hand patterns at 200 ft. While it looks like total mayhem, those are two shows in one. Although the separation is minimal, it is there.

I believe that's sort of how the Spitfire tail chases at Duxford work - the Merlin Spits (think I've seen as many as 7 or 8) fly along the the display line (slightly to the north of the hard runway?) and pull up into tear drops at either end to the north of the display line and behind the shoulder of the crowd so to speak. Meanwhile the Griffon Spits have their own display line perhaps 500' to the south of the runway and do their tear drops to the south. It looks and sounds fantastic and probably rather more "in yer face" than it actually is. Got a vague recollection of seeing one pilot roll gently outwards at the apex of the tear drop, presumably having lost sight of the one ahead, and then carefully rejoin behind the tail end Charlie... I do get a bit uncomfortable seeing low-level loops by warbirds these days!

[tdracer]

First off, let me apologize for my earlier post where I said:
That almost looks intentional!
Some here have taken that as an accusation that perhaps it was intentional - that was in no way my intent. Rather, a simple observation that it wouldn't have looked much different if it had been a kamikaze ramming attack.
I have great memories of the Commemorative AF - going back to when it was called the Confederate Air Force (before that name became politically unacceptable). I attended a CAF show in Colorado Springs commemorating the US bicentennial on the 4th of July 1976. Went with my parents (both WWII vets - it took about two seconds to talk my dad into our going). I was in college at the time and did some writing for a college magazine - I showed them my "Press Pass" and they treated me to all the perks of a proper press reporter :ok:.
I've been a regular supporter of the CAF ever since.
My heart goes out to those impacted by this tragedy. While safety lessons can certainly be learned from this accident - I also hope and pray that it won't adversely impact the good work that the CAF and other similar groups do by displaying these classic warbirds to educate the public.

[punkalouver]

Very sad. I see it happened at Dallas Executive airport, or Redbird, as I fondly remember it. Learn’t to fly there in 1980.

Yes, I flew Grumman Cheetah's out of there.

To be honest, I know that CAF is now based there but it does have roads and some city around. I saw a major airshow at Alliance Airport in nearby Fort Worth a few years ago. It has huge open space which makes me wonder if it would be a little more appropriate if these kinds of maneuvers are being done. A high speed collision like this can result in debris falling quite far away.

[SnowFella]

Fellow photographer has posted some high detail shots of the crash sequence on another forum.
I'll just leave the link, DP Review thread. (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4681586)

[Chiefttp]

This is so tragic,
I flew a T-38 Nav trip to Ellington Field in 1987. We parked the jet right next to the “Texas Raider”. As we climbed out of the jet, 5 elderly gentlemen, wearing WWII Veteran hats, greeted us, and asked if they could look at our jet. We gave them a tour, and then they offered us a tour of their B-17 “Texas Raider” they opened the door and let us wander inside to our hearts content. They even let me climb on the wing and snap this photo! RIP.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6031685/uploads/editor/e2/cjhvlsbgbl3w.jpeg

[uxb99]

Fellow photographer has posted some high detail shots of the crash sequence on another forum.
I'll just leave the link, DP Review thread. (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4681586)
Looking at those images I doubt many survived the impact let alone the inevitable crash. If there ever was a word to describe that collision devastating would be it.

[RatherBeFlying]

There's been a litany of recent midairs with at least one aircraft ADS-B equipped. And yes, there's been midairs between FLARM equipped aircraft where one FLARM was inop.

When it's properly installed and working in both aircraft FLARM does the job very well. With ADS-B becoming more common, I see more low level aircraft on my FLARM and I'm more than happy to get out of their way even if I can't reach them on radio.

While many assert that a proper lookout will keep you safe, I look upon FLARM as a backup against human imperfection. It really does see better than I do. Atmospheric conditions, background and sun glare can do an excellent job of hiding aircraft even if you know where to look.

[Tay Cough]

Sally B displays with three crew, two pilots and FE. Other members of the team can ride but never during a display.

[fdr]

around 8 seconds to 3 seconds before impact the B-17 would have been visible at around 30-40degrees right of the nose of the P-63, which is about the time the pilot is setting up his turn to the left. At 3 seconds or so before impact the P-63 rolls into a left bank and the B-17 is obscured from that point until just before impact. The left wing tip of the B-17 would have come into view immediately before impact, far too late to avoid the collision. The video doesn't readily show what the P-63 would be seeing before the 8 second point before impact, there will be video out there, it just hasn't surfaced as yet.

The low differential in speed increases the angular scan region required to clear for traffic, a lookout to around 70 degrees off the nose would be required to visually clear this traffic just on the relative speeds. The traffic that the P-63 was following was off in the opposite direction to the proximate traffic, left of the nose, around 10-11, vs the B-17 at 1-1:30 or so relative clock position.

[megan]

A pilot who flew the aircraft commented in a Y'tube video that the visibility from the cockpit is not the greatest, a lot of blanking windscreen structure, part of the Swiss cheese?

[9 lives]

The low differential in speed increases the angular scan region required to clear for traffic, a lookout to around 70 degrees off the nose would be required to visually clear this traffic just on the relative speeds. The traffic that the P-63 was following was off in the opposite direction to the proximate traffic, left of the nose, around 10-11, vs the B-17 at 1-1:30 or so relative clock position

Is perhaps factual. If I were reading this analysis in the report of an actual air combat, or maybe really advanced combat training accident, it might have traction with me. However, this loss of situational awareness occurred during what should be professional, very low performance pressure display flying. I opine that what should have happened would be that the P-63 pilot recognized a loss of traffic awareness, combined with zero pressure to complete a form up, and followed a pre-planned escape path away from all the other airplanes.

Reasoning of an outcome is not the same depending upon what the objective of the maneuver was to begin with. Objective: To entertain aviation enthusiasts and display vintage airplanes - no pressure to complete - Risk tolerance = very low.

[Ugly Jet Captain]

I have flown in air shows and been through a bevy of briefings. The fighters were in a simple tail chase left hand orbit pattern. The "parade pass" has a hard deck and you just chase the guy in front of you. It is a bit harder with disparate aircraft, but possible if you recognize this and just give a bit longer before you pull after the pass to set up more space on the downwind. The bombers were in a straight parade and they just tail chase and lumber through. Separation is both horizontal and vertical usually, and as others have mentioned here, the runway is the divider that is simplest to use. Horizontal spacing is briefed and set up so orbits don't cross thru the others altitudes. The P-63 wasn't joining up on the B-17. He was supposed to chase the Mustang in front of him around the pattern while the bombers flew a line astern pass down the flight line.

I have looked at the footage and the bombers were coming in from airshow left and a bit angled in to the runway as the B-17 had to bank left to begin his parade pass. I think this puts him almost directly over the runway and "cuts the corner" and doesn't leave any room for the fighters to leak out of their area. The P-63 is in a tail chase with a P-51 and it looks like he is more than eating him up. The only place the -63 has to go to get spacing is to widen out and it looks like he is doing that when he impacts the -17. His eyes would be locked on the Mustang especially if he was eating him up and trying to make some space. I would agree he never saw the -17 coming.

Who is to blame if the above is correct? The -63 has the responsibility to space off the guy in front of him and managing his speed and spacing. We have all chased someone on final and cursed at them for slowing, but ultimately we are responsible for the spacing. If he hadn't eaten up the guy in front of him he wouldn't have widened out. I haven't seen footage of the fighters making earlier passes, but he may have been using the widening out on the parade pass to help manage spacing for a couple of circuits. Regardless, one should space somewhere besides the parade pass and he should not have been pulling out of his dive to the flightline to make his pass so close to the Mustang.

The -17 also was possibly out of position given the late left turn to line up to the air show line and the crash happening almost directly over the runway which was likely the divider for the two groups. This is a bit harder to discern, but given the late turn I think they were supposed to be lined up farther from airshow center and may have entered the "buffer" area over the runway.

Last is the Air Boss and the briefing and planning of the flight. The setup of the bomber passes crossing through the fighter altitudes is questionable. There were a lot of moving parts here with each fighter doing his thing. I don't like this many airplanes freelancing at the same time, let alone having the bombers pass through the vertical profile of the fighters.

My heart goes out to those that perished. I have flown a lot of air shows and sadly crashes like this happen. We need to brief like we plan and fly like we brief. Lesson can and should be learned from this.

[fdr]

A pilot who flew the aircraft commented in a Y'tube video that the visibility from the cockpit is not the greatest, a lot of blanking windscreen structure, part of the Swiss cheese?

Not sure they guy had flown the aircraft, as the visibility is actually darn good in the required area. The pilot is above and forward of the wing leading edge, the B-17 would have been down low towards the sill but forward of the wing LE. A P-51 or P-40 etc would have hidden the B-17 once the turn started, and in some angles even at wings level where the B-17 was slightly lower.

That it was possible to see the B-17 doesn't mean that it was certain it would be sighted, the primary focus shortly before the turn was to the left, and then in the turn, left and upwards, which is a long way from the B-17's location in the viewable area.

lateral separation with a large turn angle is not reliable as a deconfliction, altitude would have been helpful.

[nojwod]

Looks to be a strong possibility. Looking at the satellite view of the likely “background” the P-63 driver would have seen behind the B-17 shows a dark green wooded area.

Looking at the curving closure approach of the P-63 towards the B-17 may have presented the B-17 as almost stationary and ‘invisible’ to the P-63.


I base my thoughts on this video apparently taken from “Square 67 Shopping Center 6210 US 67 Frontage Rd Dallas, TX 75237”


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfz7eFSX_FU


I can also imagine that the pilot of the Kingcobra may have been fixated on the other fighters and concentrating mostly on setting up a joining arc, and as you say any glances over the nose might not have been able to see the B17 against the background just over the nose, pilot is satisfied it's clear ahead, goes back to looking at the other fighters and completely misses seeing the B17.

To me it's a tragic accident and many other pilots in the same situation might not have been able to see and avoid the B17 under the circumstances.

[cncpc]

Holly CRAP! What was that Kingcobra pilot thinking? That almost looks intentional!

It does, but I suppose all midairs might. However, you'd think the P63 pilot had to have the B17 in sight seconds before impact, but did not take action to avoid. Incapacitation?

[cncpc]

I acknowledge better explanations have preceded my reply. Thanks.

[sycamore]

I agree with UJC that the B-17 may have been somewhat out of position in timing,but then `heavies` don`t have much ability to `catch-up`.Another point is that if the `fighters` were allowed to come ``down` from their normal `pass altitude` that has to be done well before turning in,so you can see the heavies above the skyline( and that blue sky) and then come up to the correct level,and as I noted in #16,,if you can`t see the other aircraft,get out.Briefly embarassing for yourself ,but better than what possibly happened here.

On another point,the video of the P-63 `Walkaround`,it was mentioned by the pilot that there are blindspots,due to doorframes,etc,but his seating position appeared to be quite `low`,.He may not have been the pilot in this case,but you should really be up and head swivelling,eyeballs on stalks when formation flying..

[Australopithecus]

I flew the Collings Foundation B-17 at airshows in 1985 and the possibility then of collision was our primary worry. Of course back then the shows were less well organised, and the fighters were often operated by guys with no formal military or formation flying instruction.

What a sad thing.

[ATC Watcher]

Ugly Jet Captain (https://www.pprune.org/members/15325-ugly-jet-captain): probably the best post in here and yes when catching up you focus on keeping sight with the preceding aircraft. It more and more looks like the B17 was most probably not in the airspace block where it was supposed to be according to the plan., but we'll see.

@ Flying_Scotsman (https://www.pprune.org/members/141145-flying_scotsman) : If the "Air Boss" is talking continuously for 20 minutes
where did you get that from ? is there a link to an audio recording ( e.g Air leaks) of the Air Boss frequency ? Many spotters on shows have receivers and listen to the display frequency ,

[Lake1952]

Actor Jimmy Stewart's recent biography did a deep dive on his WW2 experiences as a B24 pilot. The frequency of midair collisions between friendly aircraft was astounding.

[Flying_Scotsman]

Ugly Jet Captain (https://www.pprune.org/members/15325-ugly-jet-captain): probably the best post in here and yes when catching up you focus on keeping sight with the preceding aircraft. It more and more looks like the B17 was most probably not in the airspace block where it was supposed to be according to the plan., but we'll see.

@ Flying_Scotsman (https://www.pprune.org/members/141145-flying_scotsman) :
where did you get that from ? is there a link to an audio recording ( e.g Air leaks) of the Air Boss frequency ? Many spotters on shows have receivers and listen to the display frequency ,

Post #38 has some background to how this show is run from someone who has displayed there in the past. They mention the Ai Boss control.

[ATC Watcher]

Post #38 has some background to how this show is run from someone who has displayed there in the past. They mention the Ai Boss control. Thanks I had missed that bit. , although not sure if he referred to that particular show , or one of his past experience. On all the shows I have made in Europe, the display frequency has very few interventions from the ground. Very surprised of that comment, because as you said , for me if the Air Boss needs to speak continuously then the planning is either not done properly or is not followed. by the pilots.

[JRK]

Agh, that's rough.... Sad for the beautiful birds and the amazing aviators lost in this accident :((

[Flying_Scotsman]

Thanks I had missed that bit. , although not sure if he referred to that particular show , or one of his past experience. On all the shows I have made in Europe, the display frequency has very few interventions from the ground. Very surprised of that comment, because as you said , for me if the Air Boss needs to speak continuously then the planning is either not done properly or is not followed. by the pilots.

Exactly right. To ensure there is a quiet "Display Frequency" at smaller fields which have only Air/Ground or AFISO services we will always provide a temporary frequency to ensure that the display crews are not bothered by normal ATC when displaying.

[dbenj]

The P-63 appears to be aligning with the parade line of the bombers, and not the line of P-51s. Additionally the P-63 was likely to overshoot the bomber parade line by some distance based upon its bank angle and relative flight direction with the B-17 at time of impact. For highly experienced professional pilots this seems very hard to explain without pilot incapacitation or mechanical failure.

[punkalouver]

I flew the Collings Foundation B-17 at airshows in 1985 and the possibility then of collision was our primary worry. Of course back then the shows were less well organized, and the fighters were often operated by guys with no formal military or formation flying instruction.


Any time multiple groups are flying and doing different patterns, the risk goes up when an error is made and errors are inevitably made. Groups can end up focusing on their own flight and not be aware of something going wrong elsewhere.

This accident brought back memories of just this year, where I was flying a smaller warbird in an airshow with two other aircraft that involved two separate distinct patterns, with separate flyby's, which prevents gaps in the display. We ended up on an unplanned head to head pass with the other aircraft which fortunately was recognized by the person in the aircraft I was chasing, which allowed spacing to be made.

Procedures were reviewed and changed for the next day. Interestingly, the CAA authorities, there to monitor the safety of the show, were quite satisfied with the overall show in which the incident happened.

[WillFlyForCheese]

The P-63 appears to be aligning with the parade line of the bombers, and not the line of P-51s. Additionally the P-63 was likely to overshoot the bomber parade line by some distance based upon its bank angle and relative flight direction with the B-17 at time of impact. For highly experienced professional pilots this seems very hard to explain without pilot incapacitation or mechanical failure.

Agree that the -63 trajectory would have taken it well outside the other aircraft. Even if the -17 was a bit outside of its lane, the -63 looked like a car sliding out around a turn headed for the wall . . . .

[meleagertoo]

I never cease to be astonished at the imagination and variety of fantastical excuses people manage to invent for aircraft accidents.

For highly experienced professional pilots this seems very hard to explain without pilot incapacitation or mechanical failure.

Highly experienced Professional pilots seldom concur with double jeopardy 'theories'. In the sim double jeopardy situatons are nowadays (thankfully) almost exclusively banned. In 99.8% of cases if it looks like a duck, flies like a duck and quacks like a duck it almost certainly isn't an almost extinct lesser spotted golden eared fantasybird.

No pun intended, but the report on this will without doubt indicate this tragic suituation was a complete 'turkey'.

Virtually no-one pulling a tight turn to follow in a tailchase looks below and to the side of themselves - even if they could in an aeroplane with as renowned poor visibility as the P63 - he'd have been fixated on up, ahead and left. The B17 was probably obscured beneath the engine cowling and under his right ear. And no criticism intended, if as reported he was an Airline pilot did he really have the instinctive continuously scanning rubber-neck lookout of a fighter pilot? As an ex mil pilot gone airlines I found to my chagrin that bollockings ensued at the gliding club due to my almost total loss of basic active lookout...

None, all or some of these thoughts may be relevant.

Texas Raiders has a place in my heart. She was the first aeroplane I ever turned a spanner on. Changing some hydraulic pipes as a volunteer at Harlingen in 1977 which kickstarted my entire career. I wonder if they were still there...

[Flying Binghi]

Seems to be sufficient data points for the flight sim people to put together an in-flight cockpit view the P-63 driver would have seen. Can somebody link to it when it comes out please.

[meleagertoo]

Here she is, easter 1977 at Harlingen.
Its hard to reflect that in those days film was expensive and every shot cost money - I spent a mnonth there and took only about two rolls of slide film plus one of B & W. What a historcial opportunity missed!


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/794x507/screenshot_2022_11_14_at_21_16_19_5e94f790be3b9e0a74c89198e3 a45b15a11484e4.png
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/780x488/screenshot_2022_11_14_at_21_16_45_615f86391ccde5aec140fba803 9856f425db433a.png
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1300x894/screenshot_2022_11_14_at_21_17_16_d227cb1cfe3029d6428fbe586d b5375a5c4fcc13.png
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/795x512/screenshot_2022_11_14_at_21_18_12_014af1ac2d511062aff935329f 51d962da6ba35d.png
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/542x416/screenshot_2022_11_14_at_21_18_38_c72f926f29fe2b2ad729c07176 f3043037c1d23f.png

[tdracer]

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/35b9240eea62c41cd5b5d9184/images/8c951937-83a1-43bd-9c94-c98d04e5d4f7.png
Dear CAF Supporters,

Today I have the sad task of sharing the names of those who went west at the CAF Wings Over Dallas WWII Airshow on Saturday, November 12, 2022.

In this email, you will find the names of the crewmen, ways to support the families, and resources available for families and friends. We appreciate the incredible support and condolences pouring in and are relaying your messages to all impacted by this tragic event.

Sincerely,

Hank Coates
CAF President/CEO
B-17 Texas Raiders & P-63 Kingcobra Aircrew
https://mcusercontent.com/35b9240eea62c41cd5b5d9184/images/85e728a1-7814-1259-b725-004c6631d09c.jpg Terry Barker
Keller, TX
https://mcusercontent.com/35b9240eea62c41cd5b5d9184/images/ceaab922-1518-08e3-1393-3417af51e1f5.jpg Dan Ragan
Dallas, TX

https://mcusercontent.com/35b9240eea62c41cd5b5d9184/images/520bd79b-5630-46eb-d8f4-a97c854f760e.jpg Craig Hutain
Montgomery, TX
https://mcusercontent.com/35b9240eea62c41cd5b5d9184/images/f2cbb8dc-165d-9e67-9ef4-3c10aac5c65b.jpg Leonard "Len" Root
Fort Worth, TX

https://mcusercontent.com/35b9240eea62c41cd5b5d9184/images/81dbd11a-7b81-53e6-29ff-912b56442590.jpg Kevin "K5" Michels
Austin, TX
https://mcusercontent.com/35b9240eea62c41cd5b5d9184/images/4c9a7239-bc3a-db02-e38e-ab3de5ee584f.jpg Curt Rowe
Hilliard, OHWays to Support the Families
The International Council of Air Shows (ICAS) Foundation*, in association with the CAF, is accepting donations for the families of those involved in the accident. To donate, please go to https://airshowfoundation.org/support/ (https://airshowfoundation.org/support/), select “Donation in honor or memory of an individual” and type “CAF” as the “Name of Memorialized”. 100% of the money collected through this effort will be provided to the families as emergency funding, with all received funds being split equally amongst those families impacted.*The ICAS Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization and follows all IRS guidelines. Although most donations made to the ICAS Foundation are tax deductible, please consult your tax adviser to confirm the deductibility of your contribution. EIN: 38-2885409
Mental Health Resources
This is a tremendous loss for our organization. We encourage those impacted to seek our support, please contact your local Red Cross (https://www.redcross.org/find-your-local-chapter.html) Disaster Mental Health or community mental health professional. You can also reach out to the National Disaster Distress Helpline by calling or texting to 1(800) 985-5990.


Copyright © 2022 Commemorative Air Force, All rights reserved.

[uxb99]

Here she is, easter 1977 at Harlingen.
Its hard to reflect that in those days film was expensive and every shot cost money - I spent a month there and took only about two rolls of slide film plus one of B & W. What a historcial opportunity missed!


Nice pictures thanks for sharing.
I saw her at Midland Odessa in 98. The dessert sure is cold in the morning. She did her Tora Tora set piece with one wheel down and trailing smoke.
I always saw her as one of the flag ships of the CAF along with Sentimental Journey. So very sad she has been lost along with her crew and the Cobra. The CAF must be heart broken.
Hopefully it's not the final straw for that wing.
Three B17's lost in 10 years is quite a high attrition rate for the type. With groundings there can't be more than five or so still flying.

[WHBM]

It would have been nice for the Boeing website to put a well-worded tribute up to the dedicated aviation team who showcase their products from 80 years ago.

However, CEO David Calhoun is wholly featured at an investors' conference, doubtless seen as far more important. Nothing on their news pages.

[MENELAUS]

Fokker’s point is, I believe, that the unfortunate death of colleagues should not be turned in to a flight sim “game” and posted on here as some sort of vicarious speculation.
And he’s right. Wholeheartedly.

[finestkind]

The P-63 appears to be aligning with the parade line of the bombers, and not the line of P-51s. Additionally the P-63 was likely to overshoot the bomber parade line by some distance based upon its bank angle and relative flight direction with the B-17 at time of impact. For highly experienced professional pilots this seems very hard to explain without pilot incapacitation or mechanical failure.

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.

[Flying Binghi]

Fokker’s point is, I believe, that the unfortunate death of colleagues should not be turned in to a flight sim “game” and posted on here as some sort of vicarious speculation.
And he’s right. Wholeheartedly.

I see the posts are gone now. Seems I should have added more backgrounding to my post..:(

My reference to flight sims is not about making a ‘game’ of it, more to have a better understanding of the pilots eye view of the situation. There has been a lot of discussion about it in this thread.

Reading the comments to this thread I still believe the P-63 driver would not have initially noted the B-17 due to it appearing stationary reference the green background. I am though agreeing with the assessment of others that in the last few seconds the B-17 would have been hidden under the nose of the P-63.

I am not making any judgement as to who should have been where, when, and at what height, nor the incapacity or otherwise of the pilots. To me, that is for the accident investigators to decide.

[RatherBeFlying]

From the various videos and ADS-B records, the NTSB will be able to produce video reconstructions from various viewpoints including from the cockpits.

[Flying Binghi]

Blancolirio has a look-see:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C342dfNPCyg


The ADSB data referenced in the video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KHXgjj02anA

[dbenj]

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.

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.

[exlatccatsa]

Very sad. I see it happened at Dallas Executive airport, or Redbird, as I fondly remember it. Learn’t to fly there in 1980.
Me too with Curzon

[Richard of Oz]

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.

Blancolirio has a look-see:

The ADSB data referenced in the video:

[Ugly Jet Captain]

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.

[Foxxster]

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.


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.

[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.

[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.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Amidst all the theories and contributory factors……sometimes it just comes down to a mistake by a human being that leads to tragic consequences.

Having seperate groups of aeroplanes co-altitude during a display is **** planning.

Even a 200ft separation contract would have prevented this for almost no visual change.

A bit of a setup.

[ATC Watcher]

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.

[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.

[alfaman]

How could a pilot perform a loss of situational awareness clearing manoeuvre when he had no idea that he had lost situational awareness.
That's a key point in SA loss: you don't know that you don't have it, until & unless the penny drops, & sometimes a third party intervention is the only way to break out of it.

[scout]

Agree

[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.

[vegassun]

Very sad. I see it happened at Dallas Executive airport, or Redbird, as I fondly remember it. Learn’t to fly there in 1980.

Me too, grew up in Oak Cliff (few miles north of Redbird).

[LowObservable]

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.

"It's not what we don't know that gets us in trouble, it's what we do know that just ain't so."

[Capt. G L Walker]

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.


Completely agree

[flyer101flyer]

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?

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

[uxb99]

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

Not forgetting that if we lived our lives worrying about what might happen, we would never do anything.

[Chiefttp]

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.

[Bill Macgillivray]

Chiefttp, I think your last sentence says it all !! Thoughts with everyone affected! Bill

[First_Principal]

In my part of the world at least 'human factors' is a part of the pilot's syllabus, and is examined at least for PPL and CPL.

When I did postgraduate 'human factors' at Uni many years ago it was closely aligned with ergonomics, for obvious reasons - after all the design of something will afford a human operator certain operations, certain views, and in some cases can lead that human to perform unintended actions.

With regard to various aircraft I've flown over the years I've often been reminded of just how poor some are with regard to ergonomic design than others. As a general rule the earlier one goes back the worse they are. This comes out in all sorts of ways; from the simple positioning of various levers, switches, gauges to the ability for some controls to be manipulated in ways they weren't intended, or two completely disparate controls to be placed close together yet look and feel the same.

Another issue, as has been discussed here to some extent, is the view afforded in any direction to the pilot of a particular aircraft. While there does seem to be a little contention about it the opinion I've formed from what I've read here, and seen on the 'tube, is that the P-63 may have some issues - compared to other craft - with regard to pilot vision.

I don't intend to debate that, it's presented to give background and isn't really the point of my post, but what I did want to ask is whether general 'ergonomics' (or even just plain vision constraints) of different craft forms any part of a display assessment or plan?

To be clear; this isn't me making a dubious point or criticism, it's just that I've no experience of such planning and with the above in mind I simply wondered if it was a factor that those planning such shows consider?

Depending upon the answer I might also ask a supplementary question as to whether there was any value in considering such ergonomics, and possibly whether such could have impacted decisions at Dallas? This question, again, would simply be in order to learn, and I'd be obliged to anyone answering that has experience in this area.

FP.

[LowObservable]

Not forgetting that if we lived our lives worrying about what might happen, we would never do anything.

I think most here would agree that in a demanding aviation operation, safety is best served when everyone on the airplane has a job to do and knows when and how to do it, and there is nobody around to distract them.

That said, if I was running a display including multi-seat airplanes, I might sometimes be glad of a rule to that effect. So that when Mr Mayor, the Chair of the Airport Commission, or the local TV personality comes pushing for a ride, I can smile sweetly and say "I would just looove to give you that opportunity, sir, but you see, the Feds..."

[MechEngr]

I think most here would agree that in a demanding aviation operation, safety is best served when everyone on the airplane has a job to do and knows when and how to do it, and there is nobody around to distract them.

That said, if I was running a display including multi-seat airplanes, I might sometimes be glad of a rule to that effect. So that when Mr Mayor, the Chair of the Airport Commission, or the local TV personality comes pushing for a ride, I can smile sweetly and say "I would just looove to give you that opportunity, sir, but you see, the Feds..."

A while back the mayor and other officials of the City of Saint Louis got wiped out in a publicity flight. https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/storytellers/eyewitness-remembers-one-of-st-louis-worst-air-disasters-75-years-later/63-579472206

[EXDAC]

I think most here would agree that in a demanding aviation operation, safety is best served when everyone on the airplane has a job to do and knows when and how to do it, and there is nobody around to distract them.

If the left waist gunner position was manned the person stationed there would have had a clear view of the approaching P-63. Was everyone on board briefed to call conflicting traffic or were they just along for the ride? Quite possible that a lumbering B-17 couldn't have made a significant difference in separation but I see no reaction at all in any of the video.

[Arm out the window]

Quite possible that a lumbering B-17 couldn't have made a significant difference in separation but I see no reaction at all in any of the video.

My guess is that even if someone on board saw the incoming P63, there would've been insufficient time to:
- realise it was on a collision course
- call that to the pilots in a meaningful way
- for the pilots to take effective avoidance action.

Looks like there would've been only a few seconds for the realisation of the danger to be processed, if anyone indeed saw it.

[finestkind]

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.Having x amount of hours and a career in aviation does make one a professional experienced pilot. But I think you are trying to make more out of it than a simple answer that is sufficient. You only have to look at other aviation accidents that involve highly experienced professional pilots to understand that there is nothing more to it than a misjudgment, loss of SA etc.

[Jhieminga]

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?
The way they justify the minimum crew of 5, is to add "safety observers" to the crew. This has been an ongoing conversation for over 20 years. But hard to defend. The FAA has long contended that only essential personnel should be on board so this accident will have lots of consequences.
They do this on the B-29 and I was guessing that they do this on the other large bombers too but Bobby G confirmed it. On the B-29 they are referred to as 'left scanner' and 'right scanner' and they are there to keep an eye on engines, visually confirm flaps and gear if necessary, look after people in the rear compartment if needed and keep their eyes outside for other traffic.
If the left waist gunner position was manned the person stationed there would have had a clear view of the approaching P-63. Was everyone on board briefed to call conflicting traffic or were they just along for the ride? Quite possible that a lumbering B-17 couldn't have made a significant difference in separation but I see no reaction at all in any of the video.
Not just briefed, they were part of the crew and there for that purpose. They probably didn't have time to take any action (as Arm out the window already said two posts back).

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

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.

It appears you are overlooking the enormous difference between the P-63 pilot's day job and what he was doing on the day of the crash. At a guess, 99% of his flying hours were logged flying benign and carefully scripted procedures in a well-equipped modern aircraft with a second crew-member. His experience level at dynamic display flying at low level in an 80 year old single seat fighter will emerge in due course, but will likely be low.

There are perhaps some parallels with the two fatal vintage jets crashes in Britain in 2015, where both pilots involved had very little recency on dynamic manoeuvres in agile aircraft, and I suspect the scale of changes to display regulation which followed the Shoreham crash will be mirrored in the US in the months ahead.

Regarding Duxford, the balbo was indeed impressive to behold, but I was there the year when the P-51 was rammed by the Skyraider and the pilot of the former thankfully survived baling out from a very low height. IMHO having numerous aircraft in the same piece of sky flown by individuals who - despite their best intentions - have little opportunity to practise the complex manoeuvres is an unjustifiable risk.

[Chiefttp]

First Prinipal,
You asked;
“Depending upon the answer I might also ask a supplementary question as to whether there was any value in considering such ergonomics, and possibly whether such could have impacted decisions at Dallas? This question, again, would simply be in order to learn, and I'd be obliged to anyone answering that has experience in this area.”

The P-63 was “belly Up” and above the B-17, therefore unless it was an invisible aircraft no amount of ergonomics would have prevented this collision. Also, the P-63 was a fighter plane, and designed as such to have good visibility (for the time period) in order to carry out its primary mission, which was to visually acquire enemy aircraft and shoot them down. The first thing we learned in the Air Force during formation training was always keep your leader, and wingman in sight. If you ever lose sight, call “Lost Wingman” and depart the formation ASAP. Also the most difficult part of formation flying isn’t flying in formation itself, it was rejoining with the other aircraft is an expeditious and Controlled manner. The fast rejoins displayed by formation teams like the Blue Angels or Red Arrows always impressed me way more than the fingertip formations they fly. So many things can go wrong during a rejoin, and this accident is an example of one of them. He was attempting to rejoin with the fighter in front of him, was fixated on that fighter and lost SA of his location and the B-17.

TorqueoftheDevil,
the P-63 pilot was an airline pilot, but he had extensive experience flying these warbirds and was considered an expert in the Warbird community. I believe he had over 34,000 hours total time. No rookie. Poor SA and target fixation is what caused this collision in my opinion.

[Chiefttp]

Observe how the rejoining aircraft is under control, and performing a slow controlled rejoin with lead. The rejoining aircraft isn’t on a collision course with lead, but on a parallel vector and is lower , climbing slowly up the rejoin line with a controlled closure rate. Closure rate is difficult to gauge and it’s easy to misjudge until it’s too late. That’s why we paractice closures a lot.
Aerial refueling and hooking up to a tanker wasn’t as difficult as coordinating a rendevous with the tanker and joining up with him to get the gas.
https://youtube.com/shorts/qF4RwSLpskQ?feature=share

[blind pew]

50 years ago I raised the subject of discussing accidents with our course head which fell on deaf ears even though he had lost his flying career from a self induced accident. Two years later it was apparently introduced to the syllabus after I penned a letter for the lane inquiry re the then philosophy of hiding mistakes.
The last 25 years I've flown in extremely close proximity to others albeit at low speeds amassing several thousand hours but most of the time unless I know the pilots concerned I keep well away.
From experience people do a lot of ridiculous things often from target fixation..I've done the same.
IMHO a lot of different types flying around relatively randomly is a recipe for disaster.
I did Oskosh in the early 90s and was impressed by their organisation often with multiple similar aircraft in the air at the same time.

[Jhieminga]

I'm not a fan of videos analysing accidents that just happened, but I must admit that this one from ASI Senior Vice President Richard McSpadden is balanced and covers the basics of what will be investigated by the NTSB: https://youtu.be/rumZ1jc74f4

[DaveUnwin]

Torque, when you said "His experience level at dynamic display flying at low level in an 80 year old single seat fighter will emerge in due course, but will likely be low" you were well off the beam. Craig Hutain had a lot of experience flying machines like the P-63, P-40 etc.

[dbenj]

Having x amount of hours and a career in aviation does make one a professional experienced pilot. But I think you are trying to make more out of it than a simple answer that is sufficient. You only have to look at other aviation accidents that involve highly experienced professional pilots to understand that there is nothing more to it than a misjudgment, loss of SA etc.

Sorry. Still not buying "simple" loss of SA.

This was neither a complex or highly dynamic situation. While there were numerous aircraft in the air, the immediate task for the P-63 before the collision was pretty basic: make a descending turn onto an established line following other aircraft. Happens every landing, often with other parallel landing traffic. SFO comes to mind. No absolute need to know where the B-17 location, because its parade line was significantly offset from the the established fighter parade line. (What was the briefed separation of the parade lines?) Still the P-63 significantly overshoot the turn. Something else was going on.

[tartare]

Sorry. Still not buying "simple" loss of SA.

This was neither a complex or highly dynamic situation. While there were numerous aircraft in the air, the immediate task for the P-63 before the collision was pretty basic: make a descending turn onto an established line following other aircraft. Happens every landing, often with other parallel landing traffic. SFO comes to mind. No absolute need to know where the B-17 location, because its parade line was significantly offset from the the established fighter parade line. (What was the briefed separation of the parade lines?) Still the P-63 significantly overshoot the turn. Something else was going on.

Pilot in a fast, descending left bank with conflicting, slower traffic under his dead wing - but I wonder even if the B-17 had been visible, would he have seen it?
Most of the bomber upper surfaces are dark green - would have been very hard to spot against even a built up area from above.
Dreadful, dreadful accident - and a sobering reminder of the horrors that many brave young men faced during the war.

[9 lives]

.....and a sobering reminder of the horrors that many brave young men faced during the war.

Yes, though in war, there were very different standards for risk and safety, and entirely different piloting objectives than at an airshow of antique aircraft. I would never say that war should be unsafe, but I will say that airshow flying should be most safe! An airshow is not the place to improvise, or "catch up" an error. The default pilot action should be follow a planned escape if anything is not right. The moment the pilot thinks to correct an error, the pilot should be asking themself if it's time to follow the escape plan instead, and evaluate a planned rejoin from a suitable situational awareness. Sure, very high time pilot, but that is not an assurance against complacency, and acceptance of risk not suitable for that situation. Sometimes the lesser experienced pilot, who is still a little intimidated by the flying environment, is more on their game.

[megan]

but I wonder even if the B-17 had been visible, would he have seen itTracing out the tracks of the two aircaft from when the P-63 rolled from an easterly heading to northerly the relative bearing between the two remain pretty much constant, in the order of 40-45°, such a position would have the B-17 placed close to, or hiding behind the P-63 forward door structure according to plans, from rolling on to the northerly heading to collision was of the order of 20 seconds, relative altitudes not given, only P-63 reported, the maximum lateral separation they had was of the order of 2,700 feet during northerly flight. No, or very little relative motion, camouflaged B-17, NTSB report will figure it all out.

[Schnowzer]

Looks like a classic join crash. Seen it nearly happen many times in fighter aircraft accompanied by raised heartbeats from all involved. It happens because of tunnel vision on aircraft joining, unfortunately the P-63 was pure pursuit on B-17 which means it had no lateral motion and believe it or not was probably hidden behind P-63 canopy bow until too late to avoid. Very sad. RIP

[B2N2]

There is an inherent flaw in judging pilots primarily on their flight time.
What the non flying public doesn’t know or understand is that a lot of specific experiences do not necessarily carry over.
The generic experience and skill sets do but the specifics do not.
The NTSB will determine through their investigation how much experience each participant had in their particular seat during the event.

[blind pew]

How « formation flying » can suddenly go wrong.

In the late 80s I was on a 17 day Anchorage/ Tokyo flying the DC10 out of ZRH. The skipper was on Hunters and in the Swiss national gliding team whilst the system operator pilot (cpl) was on military choppers, both with formation flying experience whilst I had none.

We hired aircraft to fly out to the Skwentna road house whose runway was frozen as it was mid winter. The others hired Cessnas whilst I hired a Cherokee as I had a couple of hundred hours on them including an instructors rating which included a lot of stalling, steep turns and spinning. The flight out in winter twilight conditions went well with the skipper leading the way in a loose line abreast. We were met with snow mobiles and enjoyed a real Swiss goulash. The three of us then went playing on snow mobiles each with one of our hostesses clinging to our waists.

On the way back we were moose and bear spotting below 500ft AGL with me on the left and slightly behind the other two. I spotted a moose and rolled into a left steep turn so that the girls could see it.

Flat out to rejoin the other two aircraft I was in the 8 o clock position when the skipper rolled into a left orbit having spotted another moose. As a competition glider pilot standard turns are carried out with 40+ degrees of bank. Instinctively I rolled to the left and pulled but realised the error immediately as he disappeared under the nose. I tightened the turn up to the stall buffet.

Years later I was asked to join in a partnership to import Pipperstral aircraft and get a microlight instructors endorsement. Having flown the high wing Sinus with the French dealer and World champion I declined. The visibility in turns was awful and the thought of flying circuits with other traffic put me off.

One never knows what the other guy is going to do and flying outside of regimented procedures is dodgy imho.

[PJ2]

Looks like a classic join crash. Seen it nearly happen many times in fighter aircraft accompanied by raised heartbeats from all involved. It happens because of tunnel vision on aircraft joining, unfortunately the P-63 was pure pursuit on B-17 which means it had no lateral motion and believe it or not was probably hidden behind P-63 canopy bow until too late to avoid. Very sad. RIP
Yes, indeed - if the aircraft is in your field of view and isn't changing position as viewed through the canopy or windshield, you're on a collision course.

[tubby linton]

As much as the money behind pprune will hate this I think that we should all wait for the NTSB report.

[Chiefttp]

Schnowzer,
I will be willing to wager a lot of money that the P-63 wasn’t rejoining on the B-17. He was concerned with his position vis-a-vis the #2 fighter (Mustang) and never saw or was aware of the B-17’s position.

[RatherBeFlying]

Autumn days at my old glider club, white gliders on tow were easy to spot from above. You had to look quite hard to spot the red or yellow towplane even though you knew it was 200' ahead. They blended in very well with the autumn foliage.

[EXDAC]

Yes, indeed - if the aircraft is in your field of view and isn't changing position as viewed through the canopy or windshield, you're on a collision course.

Hypothetical case unrelated to this accident - Two aircraft are flying parallel courses with lateral separation and the same speed. The trailing aircraft has the lead aircraft in a fixed position in the canopy. Are they on a collision course or is this routine formation flying?

Since aircraft on parallel courses with lateral separation cannot collide, and since the trailing aircraft has the lead in his field of view and in a fixed positon in the canopy, it's clear the simplistic statement quoted is false.

[FullOppositeRudder]

Yes, indeed - if the aircraft is in your field of view and isn't changing position as viewed through the canopy or windshield, you're on a collision course.

Not my statement, but I know what was meant. Perhaps five words can be added to clarify the intention which now reads:

Yes, indeed - if the aircraft is in your field of view and isn't changing position as viewed through the canopy or windshield, and it's increasing in size, you're on a collision course.

[Easy Peasy]

We should wait until they retrieve the black boxes. Then we’ll have all the answers.

[megan]

Since aircraft on parallel courses with lateral separation cannot collide, and since the trailing aircraft has the lead in his field of view and in a fixed positon in the canopy, it's clear the simplistic statement quoted is falseBeing pedantic doesn't make the statement false in the context of this conversation, when I spent all my time flying trail with the other chap twenty feet in front we weren't on a collision course either.

If you see another aircraft maintaining a constant bearing you better keep an eye on it as you have no idea what track it is maintaining relative to yours.

[PJ2]

Beat me to it! - thanks for the additional five clarifying words, FullOppositeRudder.

[fdr]

We should wait until they retrieve the black boxes. Then we’ll have all the answers.

? What black boxes does that refer to? These are §21.191 SAWC aircraft as far as I am aware, and they don't got black boxes.

[meleagertoo]

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.


Isn't that equivalent to saying "You lot fly high and you lot fly low - d'ya hear? But not if you don't want to"? Not my idea of a sound safety brief.

[WING7]

Isn't that equivalent to saying "You lot fly high and you lot fly low - d'ya hear? But not if you don't want to"? Not my idea of a sound safety brief.

Agree, it would have been wise to leave at least some 200' between bombers and fighters.

Pilots of both groups could also have questioned that call in order to reduce risks.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Torque, when you said "His experience level at dynamic display flying at low level in an 80 year old single seat fighter will emerge in due course, but will likely be low" you were well off the beam. Craig Hutain had a lot of experience flying machines like the P-63, P-40 etc.

That's interesting. If it turns out that he was in the wrong place, it makes the error harder to comprehend.

[Sue Vêtements]

Hypothetical case unrelated to this accident - Two aircraft are flying parallel courses with lateral separation and the same speed. The trailing aircraft has the lead aircraft in a fixed position in the canopy. Are they on a collision course or is this routine formation flying?

Since aircraft on parallel courses with lateral separation cannot collide, and since the trailing aircraft has the lead in his field of view and in a fixed positon in the canopy, it's clear the simplistic statement quoted is false.

Well if you're going to be that pedantic, parallel lines DO cross ... at infinity

[uxb99]

These accidents always generate a lot of comments as to what went wrong. Everyone has `their` idea of how it happened. Of course, none of us know for sure.
Eventually the report will be published. Regulations will change how air shows are flown.
Truthfully, we will still be none the wiser as to why it really happened and powerless to stop the next. Such is the fickle nature of human frailty with an element of bad luck thrown into what is an extremely dynamic environment.
Air shows will continue.
The reality is another two aircraft and six people will be missing.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

There is of course a lot of debate and discussion on how/why this terrible incident occurred. The comment reference the Air Boss allowing the fighters to use the bomber levels "if everything looked clear" is surprising to me.
A lot of focus is on the few seconds prior to impact but I wonder if it all began to unravel much earlier, when the fighters (P51 P51 P63) were still heading south-ish and the bomber groups would have been more or less directly ahead and crossing right to left. If P63 saw the second bomber group and assumed it was the lead group his SA has gone and to all intents and purposes the airspace to his right and below "must be clear" as he tips in fast and wide.

I'd like to see the ADSB overlay for that second little group of bombers and how that fits in with where the fighters (P51 P51 P63) were.

I have done some flying but my thought process here stems from a mis-ident as a controller in a very busy visual circuit. It led me to make a mistake where the aircraft I was seeing downwind was not the one that had just called downwind.

[LowObservable]

These accidents always generate a lot of comments as to what went wrong. Everyone has `their` idea of how it happened. Of course, none of us know for sure.
Eventually the report will be published. Regulations will change how air shows are flown.
Truthfully, we will still be none the wiser as to why it really happened and powerless to stop the next. Such is the fickle nature of human frailty with an element of bad luck thrown into what is an extremely dynamic environment.
Air shows will continue.
The reality is another two aircraft and six people will be missing.

Not so. The aviation world has become much safer - since I was an air-minded child, and 707s, DC-8s, 727s and Tridents seemed to stoof in every other week, at traffic levels that were tiny compared to today - because we learn from our errors. Can we do a parade pass to bring history to the crowd, with upper and lower elements that don't try to swap places? Will the investigation find previous incidents where airplanes lost sight of one another, but mercifully not on a collision course? I'd say that's quite possible. Can we make specific changes without separating all airplanes by two miles and 3,000 feet? Probably.

The world in general and the air show circuit in particular should not see the loss of lives and historic, irreplaceable airplanes as the cost of doing business.

[RickNRoll]

Agree, it would have been wise to leave at least some 200' between bombers and fighters.

Pilots of both groups could also have questioned that call in order to reduce risks.
Mentour says as much. If anything got out of synch then there was no room to manoeuver safely. It wouldn't look as good at greater vertical seperation but it would be safer.

Also, air show in the middle of a densely populated area?

[Easy Peasy]

? What black boxes does that refer to? These are §21.191 SAWC aircraft as far as I am aware, and they don't got black boxes.


That was a joke.

[Schnowzer]

Schnowzer,
I will be willing to wager a lot of money that the P-63 wasn’t rejoining on the B-17. He was concerned with his position vis-a-vis the #2 fighter (Mustang) and never saw or was aware of the B-17’s position.

Me too, I hoped that was what I described. Unaware of B17 due task focus on aircraft ahead creating perceptual difficulties. My bad if not. It is amazing how we create our perception and what the brain can miss. One of the most famous examples at ground speed zero.

Attention blindness

[Chiefttp]

Why are some posters stating that the fighters and bombers were at the same altitude? I’ve performed in a few air shows with the same lineup, WWII Bombers, fighters and even the Tora Tora group. At our pre-show briefings, which all participants were required to attend, altitude separation between disparate groups of aircraft was mandatory and stressed. And, to reiterate once again, the P-63 was higher than the B-17 as witnessed by the fact that it was in a DESCENDING left turn as it struck the Bomber.

[Flying_Scotsman]

Why are some posters stating that the fighters and bombers were at the same altitude? I’ve performed in a few air shows with the same lineup, WWII Bombers, fighters and even the Tora Tora group. At our pre-show briefings, which all participants were required to attend, altitude separation between disparate groups of aircraft was mandatory and stressed. And, to reiterate once again, the P-63 was higher than the B-17 as witnessed by the fact that it was in a DESCENDING left turn as it struck the Bomber.
If the pilot was concentrating on the Mustang ahead, and making the join "picture" look right, he may well not have noticed that he was descending out of his block.

[Chiefttp]

Flying Scotsman,
I Agree, he was fixated on #2

[treadigraph]

The preceding P-51s had also descended and were at around 400' during their pass according to ADSB. Previous passes had been at 1000' +. They then both broke right and up towards the NW end of the display line - presumably choreographed rather than any reaction to what happened behind them.

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a6e2de&lat=32.673&lon=-96.866&zoom=15.1&showTrace=2022-11-12&leg=4&trackLabels
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a8005a&lat=32.683&lon=-96.859&zoom=14.8&showTrace=2022-11-12&trackLabels

[bryancobb]

I flew with the Texas Raiders on that B-17 in Rome, GA a couple of years ago and that really makes me want to understand the cause.

Question: Why is a double-teardrop parade that places aircraft on the photo-pass portion with other aircraft going the opposite direction even considered?
It seems to me an oval racetrack pattern is much safer since everyone would be single-file at like speeds in the oval parade and never in converging curved paths or never overtaking
another participant. The double-teardrop with climbing and descending is a flawed plan in my mind.
Bryan Cobb

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Pilot incapacitated?

Possible, but highly unlikely. The investigators will consider all the possibilities but I strongly suspect pilot incapacitation will be ruled out.

[mickjoebill]

As with most airshows, the full circuit is in front of the spectators, this naturally results in aircraft turning toward the spectators before flying down the line.
In this incident, at the moment if impact, the momentum of the aircraft was *toward* the crowd. The impact was so catastrophic that both aircraft plummeted. But what if the P63 had been partially damaged and then descended on its track, would it have crashed into the crowd?

Would it be inherently safer for the circuit to be conducted *around* the spectators? Not as visually engaging.....
Mjb

[Black Pudding]

Was a drone involved ?

[Sygyzy]

Black Pudding. NO is the answer. (What a question! is Doha very close to the far side of the moon, or have you simply not read this thread at all).

S

[treadigraph]

As with most airshows, the full circuit is in front of the spectators, this naturally results in aircraft turning toward the spectators before flying down the line.
In this incident, at the moment if impact, the momentum of the aircraft was *toward* the crowd. The impact was so catastrophic that both aircraft plummeted. But what if the P63 had been partially damaged and then descended on its track, would it have crashed into the crowd?

Would it be inherently safer for the circuit to be conducted *around* the spectators? Not as visually engaging.....
Mjb

Quite by chance I was lucky enough to attend a Planes of Fame airshow at Chino in 2000 - around the spectators was exactly how the groups of aircraft flew, such as P-51s, P-40s, P-38s, P-47s, then Navy types, etc, Worked very well, you had something in front of you most of the time. Individual aerobatic acts (Brian Sanders in Sea Fury "Argonaut", his arrival from on high was possibly the fastest I've ever seen a piston engined aircraft go, not certain that Reno races are quite as rapid out the outset, despite the downhill start!), etc filled in. Day before I'd been at the CAF's Midland display, I don't recall the tear drop race track parades as seen at Dallas, some of the flights may have been but I'm sure most stuff was going down the display line then flying the reciprocal a mile or two further out, still in front of the crowd.

[uxb99]

As with most airshows, the full circuit is in front of the spectators, this naturally results in aircraft turning toward the spectators before flying down the line.
In this incident, at the moment if impact, the momentum of the aircraft was *toward* the crowd. The impact was so catastrophic that both aircraft plummeted. But what if the P63 had been partially damaged and then descended on its track, would it have crashed into the crowd?

Would it be inherently safer for the circuit to be conducted *around* the spectators? Not as visually engaging.....
Mjb

No. When aircraft are in the air nowhere is safe from the result of a mistake, mid-air or crash. Rules limit the impact of such an event but never totally remove it.
In 40 years, I have only witnessed personally one fatal accident and have never personally been threatened by anything that has happened at an air show.
In those 40 years there have been untold deaths on our roads and several near where I live.
So, what should we restrict. Air shows or driving?

[what next]

So, what should we restrict. Air shows or driving?

How often do you drive and how often do you attend airshows? And what is the ratio between the two for the average citizen? (The vast majority never go to an airshow in their entire life.) Nothing can be derived from this kind of statistics. Only that every fatality is one too many, both on the road and at airshows.
Personally I have seen a similar display at Duxford and must say that it was impressive. But not important enough for anybody to die for it.

[uxb99]

How often do you drive and how often do you attend airshows? And what is the ratio between the two for the average citizen? (The vast majority never go to an airshow in their entire life.) Nothing can be derived from this kind of statistics. Only that every fatality is one too many, both on the road and at airshows.
Personally I have seen a similar display at Duxford and must say that it was impressive. But not important enough for anybody to die for it.

That goes for any sport. People die horse riding, canoeing, cycling. All we can do is ensure it's as safe as possible. You have to let the event breathe a little. Hammer it with restrictions and the event wouldn't happen.

[what next]

Hammer it with restrictions and the event wouldn't happen.

It would happen but differently. Personally I don't need to see 30+ warbirds being displayed at the same time. We humans are not capable of multitasking and can only watch one at a time. So why not display one after the other? That would reduce the risk of a collision to zero and we would still be able to see historic aircraft outside of museums.

[finestkind]

It would happen but differently. Personally I don't need to see 30+ warbirds being displayed at the same time. We humans are not capable of multitasking and can only watch one at a time. So why not display one after the other? That would reduce the risk of a collision to zero and we would still be able to see historic aircraft outside of museums.


Same applies for horse racing, one on the track at a time. Also, any type of vehicle racing, one on the track at a time.

[Zombywoof]

We humans are not capable of multitasking and can only watch one at a time.If that were true, it would make playing PacMan really tough. :)

[grizzled]

Sorry what next but I disagree with your assertion about multitasking (and agree with Zombywoof's gentle retort). Next time you get the chance, spend a day sitting next to a controller at a busy approach facility, and then tell me you still believe "humans are not capable of multitasking".

Cheers

[treadigraph]

I'm typing/reading this, drinking a cuppasoup (while not typing) and listening to a comedy on TV - I'd say that's multitasking...

That said, I do prefer single type displays so one can watch and listen to one aircraft. Formations and the Flying Legends Balbo are something else.

[9 lives]

Next time you get the chance, spend a day sitting next to a controller at a busy approach facility, and then tell me you still believe "humans are not capable of multitasking".

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!

[moosepileit]

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

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Is a busy air traffic controller multi tasking?

YES.

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

[finestkind]

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

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

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

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

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

[MechEngr]

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

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

[GeeRam]

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

I agree.

[Concours77]

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.

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

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

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

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

[Bill Macgillivray]

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

[NutLoose]

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

https://eurasiantimes.com/mid-air-horror-did-us-b-17-bomber-p-63-kingcobra-collide/

[megan]

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

[treadigraph]

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

[wrench1]

Prelim report out:
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/106276/pdf

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Thanks wrench1

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

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

[First_Principal]

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

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

Also, in the video linked to Flying Binghi's post above (https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/649802-dallas-air-show-crash.html#post11330022) there is a link to the preflight briefing. To me the useful detail (in trying to understand things from a non-airshow pilot's perspective) starts at about 7:37 in that video. What I hear is winds are gusty from the NW, and at around 8:39 that 'fast movers' (P51 specifically mentioned) should be at 2300AGL, or 3000MSL to 'put you above everybody'. Then at 8:48 'bombers' should go to 2000??? - the video appears cut off, but I'm guessing this might be MSL, thus giving 1000' vertical separation.

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

Thanks,

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

This link takes you to the display programme map page.

https://wingsoverdallas.org/map/

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

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1248x969/wodmap_c17dd397b913551ea829905399061036372a81d1.png

Based on the comments in the prelim report I suggest the lines would be something like this...
Site layout from the Programme
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/893x845/wodmap2_45c8ab39e58f48f8328fdc49be95c43c413f1420.jpg
Estimated displacement from crowd line


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

Hope that helps

[First_Principal]

Thanks SATCOS WHIPPING BOY, that's very useful.

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

[fdr]

Thanks wrench1

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

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

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

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

[Ivor_Bigunn]

According to the linked Preliminary Report:

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

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

That does not look like safe planning.

IB

[22/04]

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

[sycamore]

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

[WHBM]

That does not look like safe planning.


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

[First_Principal]

..."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....


The NTSB statement seems to differ from what is said in the video of the briefing, per what I posted in #213 above.

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.

[JMVR]

The NTSB statement seems to differ from what is said in the video of the briefing, per what I posted in #213 above.

That is because the video of the briefing is from the 2021 show.

[First_Principal]

That is because the video of the briefing is from the 2021 show.

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.

[Flying_Scotsman]

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.

[ATC Watcher]

​​​​​There were no altitude deconflictions briefed before the flight or while the airplanes were in the air.

This entence from the NTSB prelim report says it all. In this case the fighters had to cross either before or after the bombers 1000 ft flight line to decend to their own 500 ft flight line, , so a point where to do this should have been clearly defined during the briefing, if not, then iy was an accident waiting to happen. I would not like to be in the shoes of the organiuser or the Airboss., 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.

[22/04]

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.

I agree. I do fly towplanes in gliding competitions so can't believe this was briefed like it appears to have been.

[WHBM]

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.

[Pilot DAR]

.....then it could have gone anywhere. The P63 should never have been flown like that....

When I was in charge of a very small airshow decades back, it was prohibited by the authority that an airplane be permitted to maneuver such that it's inertia could carry it toward the crowd line. This was one of the few "absolutes" of our permission for the airshow.

[ATC Watcher]

When I was in charge of a very small airshow decades back, it was prohibited by the authority that an airplane be permitted to maneuver such that it's inertia could carry it toward the crowd line. This was one of the few "absolutes" of our permission for the airshow.
It is basically the same rule here h in continental Europe, but apparently no so in the US,( waiting to be contradicted if I am wrong)
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.

[bryancobb]

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."

[22/04]

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."

Tre but if the guy on the ground sees something then he should advise the pilot. For example, if providing information on an air to ground frequency in the UK, I have given a runway occupied to an aircraft on approach, and he still continues I will give "confirm going around".

This did happen fast though.

[fab777]

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.

[Less Hair]

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.

[treadigraph]

fab777

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-horror-did-us-b-17-bomber-p-63-kingcobra-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.

[pchapman]

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.

All the airshow regs would be a whole different thread, but yes in USA & Canada some flight over the crowd is still allowed -- but only "simple" flying.

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.

[WideScreen]

Let me drop in some remarks, just based on the adsbexchange path/altitude diagram:

KHXgjj02anA

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.

[punkalouver]

Let me drop in some remarks, just based on the adsbexchange path/altitude diagram:

KHXgjj02anA

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.

When one is responsible for avoiding a show line violation as well as doing formation work, the workload increases significantly. I know the experts in most display teams do it(such as the head on passes of two aircraft in a display team) but that is their profession with significant repeated training for all maneuvers. A lot of the warbird and civilian crowd have done relatively little training and are less experienced.

[212man]

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

I don't think so - 11 seconds is an eternity and with high airspeeds the vertical component with relatively small pitch changes will also be high.

[uxb99]

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.

[WideScreen]

I don't think so - 11 seconds is an eternity and with high airspeeds the vertical component with relatively small pitch changes will also be high.
Yes and no, the speeds aren't that high (160-170 KTS ground speed at near sea level), the initial pitch change is from +2500 to -1700 ft/min in just 4 seconds. Please note, this is from climbing to descending, implying a negative (or at least a very small but still positive) G. And just a couple of seconds later the VS goes to -4000 ft/min in just 2 seconds or so.

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.

[sycamore]

Unless there is further audio evidence,the change of flightpaths by the `Airboss to both Bomber and fighter leaders should have been challenged,and either accepted or denied,and acknowledged by each aircraft captain.They should then have seperated at their correct heights,and stayed there with no swooping and swirling by the fighters.....

[uxb99]

Unless there is further audio evidence,the change of flightpaths by the `Airboss to both Bomber and fighter leaders should have been challenged,and either accepted or denied,and acknowledged by each aircraft captain.They should then have seperated at their correct heights,and stayed there with no swooping and swirling by the fighters.....

Is the concept of an `Airboss` an American thing? Here in the UK I was always led to believe (speaking from a position of relative ignorance) that pilots were briefed and stuck to their brief during the display.
The only intervention from the ground would be atc calls, emergencies, advisories and termination orders in the event someone performs a transgression. I would have thought the least chatter on the airwaves the better?
Perhaps someone involved in display flying can comment?

[ATC Watcher]

Is the concept of an `Airboss` an American thing?
The title yes (as far as I know) but the concept is not..It just has another name,in other countries. ( Directeur des Vols in French for instance) and the ATC in tthe TWR is not normally involved in the display itself just protecting the display airspace from others or giving landing/take off clarances. .
90% of their work is planning/briefing , so before the actual displays, there affer, it is only top timings and or a sequence confirmation , or resolving a situatuon not planned. Very little R/T normally if any .But I have neverr participated in a mulktiple aircraft types displays/shows as the CAF is doing . .Duxford or la Ferte sometimes did , but I never participated in those. Only sequential displays ones, eaxh with a strict time slot and you were the only aircaft in the box.

[Flying_Scotsman]

The title yes (as far as I know) but the concept is not..It just has another name,in other countries. ( Directeur des Vols in French for instance) and the ATC in tthe TWR is not normally involved in the display itself just protecting the display airspace from others or giving landing/take off clarances. .
90% of their work is planning/briefing , so before the actual displays, there affer, it is only top timings and or a sequence confirmation , or resolving a situatuon not planned. Very little R/T normally if any .But I have neverr participated in a mulktiple aircraft types displays/shows as the CAF is doing . .Duxford or la Ferte sometimes did , but I never participated in those. Only sequential displays ones, eaxh with a strict time slot and you were the only aircaft in the box.

In part, you are correct. If you have a look at the UK CAA document CAP403 you will see how we do it in the UK. As the Flying Display Director (Air Boss in UK) my job is the safety of the display from all aspects. That said, if there is a multi-aircraft item displaying I might suggest a scenario and let the crews work out how to safely carry it out. I, or one of the Flying Control Committee (FCC), who are all display experts, will then look at the plan, listen to the briefing and watch the "walk through". We would highlight, at the planning stage, any concerns we might have or any suggestions. I would also ask for a "ribbon diagram" of the planned flight so that I, and the FCC, can watch to see that the display is following the briefing.

Once airborne, I would not expect to make (or ask ATC to make) any calls to them other than to Stop them if I was unhappy or Terminate them if some external issue may affect the safety of their display; there are also, effectively, advisory calls of Too Low and Too Close. Unlike, I believe, the Air Boss system, the airfield is still controlled by ATC so they are in charge of flying operations with me advising them what (I think!) is happening next.

[212man]

Yes and no, the speeds aren't that high (160-170 KTS ground speed at near sea level), the initial pitch change is from +2500 to -1700 ft/min in just 4 seconds. Please note, this is from climbing to descending, implying a negative (or at least a very small but still positive) G. And just a couple of seconds later the VS goes to -4000 ft/min in just 2 seconds or so.


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)

[punkalouver]

In part, you are correct. If you have a look at the UK CAA document CAP403 you will see how we do it in the UK. As the Flying Display Director (Air Boss in UK) my job is the safety of the display from all aspects. That said, if there is a multi-aircraft item displaying I might suggest a scenario and let the crews work out how to safely carry it out. I, or one of the Flying Control Committee (FCC), who are all display experts, will then look at the plan, listen to the briefing and watch the "walk through". We would highlight, at the planning stage, any concerns we might have or any suggestions. I would also ask for a "ribbon diagram" of the planned flight so that I, and the FCC, can watch to see that the display is following the briefing.

Once airborne, I would not expect to make (or ask ATC to make) any calls to them other than to Stop them if I was unhappy or Terminate them if some external issue may affect the safety of their display; there are also, effectively, advisory calls of Too Low and Too Close. Unlike, I believe, the Air Boss system, the airfield is still controlled by ATC so they are in charge of flying operations with me advising them what (I think!) is happening next.

Seems to be similar to my limited experience in Canada. The Air Boss cleared us onto the taxiway and runway and told us when the airspace was clear.

He would not be telling us how to fly our display except for the rules at the morning briefing.

If there is a problem, such as a transient aircraft violating airspace, he will let us know.

[megan]

The term "Airboss" name is probably taken from the USN where he is responsible for air operations on the aircraft carrier or in the circuit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eWBho8AHzg

[9 lives]

I suspect that "Air Boss" in the civil airshow context, may be filled by an informed, but not necessarily licensed [for the role] person. Perhaps the chosen Air Boss is a licensed pilot, and/or air traffic controller, but I'm not aware that the role requires a dedicated license. As such, a licensed pilot, unless instructed by a licensed air traffic controller, holds the ultimate responsibility to maneuver the airplane safely, and avoid traffic. I opine that if not before, certainly now, wise people will think twice about taking on the apparent responsibility of being an Air Boss at an airshow with multiple airplanes in merging formations.

At a fly in at an uncontrolled airport decades back, for which I held an authorized role, an eager "retired air traffic controller" was enlisted to talk on the radio to air traffic. As he held no formal role, what he was broadcasting, was at best advisory, but more to the point, tying up the frequency so much that pilots could not make the broadcasts that they should have been (and were responsible to make). Seeing impending difficulty, I asked the organized to have that fellow's role (and time on the radio) dramatically reduced. Things were much better after that.

[avionimc]

In US Airshows there is an Airboss. Not so much as a Tower controller, but as a designated authority in charge of the airspace and the choreography as approved in the FAA airshow waiver.

From one of the CAF pilots flying that day:

Historically the airboss was a local member of the airshow committee or a young Captain at the Air Force Base who was tasked to run the show.

Many years ago the military figured out that an airshow is very different from a military training exercise and started requiring civilian airbosses at airshows.

Within the last 5 years the industry realized that Airbosses also needed some training and certification, and now just like aerobatic performers who are certified to different altitudes based on experience, airbosses must be certified to various show complexities and recertified annually.

In the case of a warbird demo involving multiple formations, it gets [more] complicated. The airboss designs, briefs and then executes the plan. Point out the traffic to follow and the pilot takes responsibility for separation.

Just like sequencing traffic, if someone gets wide, or slow the airboss has to be able to adapt safely.

Hopefully you can see that our industry is working hard to improve the safety of this business. We have some very talented people involved in this process of continuous improvement and it had made a huge difference.

None of that diminishes the fact that the airshow business is high risk. The most highly trained, regulated. And supervised organizations in our industry have all experienced accidents, the Thunderbirds, Blue Angels, and Snowbirds. Can we do better? Yes we can. Are we working on it? Absolutely.

[9 lives]

airbosses must be certified to various show complexities and recertified annually.

That's reassuring!

the airshow business is high risk.

Yes, but does it need to be high risk to accomplish the objective of presenting airplanes in flight to the interested public?

A learned friend of mine told me decades back: "No one ever died flying a normal circuit.". Although perhaps not 100% factual, he point was clear, fly a normal circuit, with normal separation, altitudes and speeds, and it's probably pretty safe. I think the aviation industry in general, and airshows at the point of that to the public, doesn't do itself any favours by having accidents - at all, much less those which were obviously human error. If "risky" elements need to be removed from an airshow routine to make it more safe, I feel that the safe, low risk demonstration should be the aspiration of every airshow participant.