Plane down at Dayton Airshow

I guess I just don't see things the same way as some of you... I'll refrain from commenting on any more of these. I do find it odd that there are a few who seem reluctant to talk and speculate about accidents. I see absolutely no harm in it. And I highly doubt the dead's family are combing through threads on jetcareers looking for answers. They have bigger fish to fry. Not to mention all the media hype this has received will quickly push it to the bottom of the "search pile" on google.
 
To me, there's a difference between informed speculation and basic discussion that's done in moderation....the "here are some possibilities"; versus the "...this is what happened, I know it!" stuff that people often do, which is based on nothing but a 10 second part of a video that has had no analysis done on it, or any part of any investigation even started yet. To me, that's simply irresponsible, as well as somewhat unprofessional. Even though doing the former is fine, it too often degenerates into the latter......for the reasons Ive cited time and again; people writing what they think as fact, versus what the known facts really are. Ive already listed the 4 facts that video shows about the accident, without any detailed analysis; everything else about what happened and why it happened, is purely speculation at this point. Lots of "could be's", but no "it is definitely" at this point; so anyone doing the latter is doing it on an uninformed basis at this point.

I understand where Chris, Pilot Fighter, etc, are all coming from in terms of the learning aspect(s) of any accident. People just have to be careful in how they go about doing it, in the interest of keeping things factually correct, as well being cautious to not place blame incorrectly and/or prematurely...whether human or otherwise.

There's a difference in how we'd discuss an accident here in a public forum, versus how we'd do it in the squadron ready room.
 
The very first Captain I flew the line with at Colgan died non revving to work on 3407. I felt nauseous and kept seeing his face for a week after it happened.

All the icing speculation and other crap discussed didn't help.

My AME died doing an aerobatic show in New Mexico.

In this case its too fresh and people here knew these folks. So maybe give it a rest for a while. For those left behind.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
It makes no sense to impose a blackout in a pilot's forum immediately following an accident while the discussion takes place everywhere else. Part of my wife's job involves helo EMS and what I learn immediately following those accidents on this board may have a positive affect on what she brings to her job.
 
Incidentally, what does anyone make of the increased engine exhaust at 0:28 as the aircraft rolls left wing low?
 
Yeah... I don't know.

I've probably watched the video 20 times now. If you watch the direction of travel he is going down show center pretty well, when he starts the roll you can see smoke sputter?/come out of the exhaust at the :30 second mark and for some reason he stops about 3/4 of the way through the half-roll and it holds there. He is no longer going down the same direction of travel he was and is getting closer to the crowd. Then, in my opinion, he either tries to roll the Stearman back upright or he was wanting to do an inverted turn away from the crowd and lost his bearings and pulled the wrong way in a split second decision.

I've never flown a Stearman, but with a good bit of aerobatic airplanes (excluding aerobatic planes with balanced control surfaces), for inverted flight you have to have a decent amount of forward stick to sustain level flight while inverted. An airplane that doesn't have symmetrical wings and has flat-bottom wings, the AOA to sustain level flight is also much greater. So to fly inverted in a flat-bottom winged airplane without balanced controls will require quite a bit of forward stick combined with a somewhat high inverted AOA.

Then, add a 120lb human out on the end of the wing. I have no idea how much opposite aileron that would require, but I would imagine it would require some. That same 120lb is also inducing drag and requiring opposite rudder input.

It sure seems to be a handful to take a Stearman and roll it inverted that low, have forward stick input coupled with opposite aileron and opposite rudder to counteract the wingwalker. :-/

Like stated previously, I've never flown a Stearman, but I wouldn't imagine a big biplane like that would snap/spin that quickly. Especially at that airspeed.

Looks to me like he tried to roll it back upright, or he mistakenly had the wrong inputs for an inverted turn away from the crowd at the last second.


Condolences to the friends and family.


*Disclaimer: I'm not saying that's what happened. This is just my speculation. I have no time in Stearmans and my inverted and aerobatic experience is small. From what I've read about Charlie, he seemed to be an experienced pilot with time in the Stearman, Pitts, and Extra aerobatic airplanes. But as with many late airshow performers, we've came to realize that even the best of the best make fatal mistakes.
 
Hard to watch, but they knew the risks of what they were doing.

It was an accident, whatever happened we all love to speculate.

At least they died doing what they loved, which to be honest, if it's my time, I'd rather go doing something that brings me joy rather than the million other ways most people leave the earth.
 
canadian_atc said:
Hard to watch, but they knew the risks of what they were doing.

It was an accident, whatever happened we all love to speculate.

At least they died doing what they loved, which to be honest, if it's my time, I'd rather go doing something that brings me joy rather than the million other ways most people leave the earth.
Click to expand...
Myself, personally, I'd rather die of old age with my family around. Just saying. I know the quote is old and often used, but dying in a fiery ball is not my idea of love...
 
Damned shame we don't get to choose ...

My experience suggests there isn't really a good way, although I suspect "quick" may help.
 
Stone Cold said:
Myself, personally, I'd rather die of old age with my family around. Just saying. I know the quote is old and often used, but dying in a fiery ball is not my idea of love...
Click to expand...
I agree.

I'm saying that if im their age when I go, I can think of thousands of harder ways to go on you and your family.

Seen too many friends die a slow painful death from disease, if I had to choose one, I would rather go out living life, rather than waiting for it to end.

I realize there's no solace to anyone by that statement.

If I had any choice, it's living in perfect health until I'm 150, then passing in your sleep.

I'm just saying that I would choose going in a quick way doing something I love over the plethora of other ways most people go.
 
I've spoke with an experienced wing walking pilot and also saw commentary from another airshow performer with a similar act. The general consensus seems to be the maneuver they were trying to pull off was not particularly safe or a good idea. Unfortunately, everyone got to see why.

I've flown skydivers before in a Stearman. When they walk out to the N strut to jump off, even at 90mph it takes a good amount of rudder and 3/4 of the aileron deflection to keep the wings level. I can't imagine actually rolling away from the person, low to the ground.

It appears that there wasn't enough rudder available due to the wing walker to get the nose up high enough for the first 1/4 of the slow roll to set the attitude. Between the pilot burying the rudder and the resulting push needed to maintain altitude, that creates a lot of drag and can easily bleed off 5-10mph. In an airplane like the Stearman, you aren't going to get that back with out losing altitude.

Okie_Pilot said:
...I wouldn't imagine a big biplane like that would snap/spin that quickly. Especially at that airspeed.
Click to expand...
There are quite a few Stearmans out there with leading edge stall strips. They snap roll pretty well.
 
Look...if we were all sitting around a hanger, maybe a Waco or something neat behind us making that awesome tick and clicking sound that an airplane will as it cools off after a flight...drinking beer watching the sunset...we'd be talking about this wreck, speculating about the cause, talking about the video and whatnot. And there would be no screams of "Oh no!!! We can't talk about this!!! What about the dead!!!!"

I know this for a fact because I've participated in those discussions, a couple of times with our eyewitness accounts taking place of the video. Why can't we just have typical hanger-flying rules? If the family of the dead want to come here, they are welcome. I don't see anyone ridiculing the pilot. Certainly Jane and the pilot were smart enough to understand the risks of the game and I would put a decent sized chunk of change on the bet that they've probably engaged in this kind of talk themselves.
 
MikeD said:
To me, there's a difference between informed speculation and basic discussion that's done in moderation....the "here are some possibilities"; versus the "...this is what happened, I know it!" stuff that people often do, which is based on nothing but a 10 second part of a video that has had no analysis done on it, or any part of any investigation even started yet. To me, that's simply irresponsible, as well as somewhat unprofessional. Even though doing the former is fine, it too often degenerates into the latter......for the reasons Ive cited time and again; people writing what they think as fact, versus what the known facts really are. Ive already listed the 4 facts that video shows about the accident, without any detailed analysis; everything else about what happened and why it happened, is purely speculation at this point. Lots of "could be's", but no "it is definitely" at this point; so anyone doing the latter is doing it on an uninformed basis at this point.

I understand where Chris, Pilot Fighter, etc, are all coming from in terms of the learning aspect(s) of any accident. People just have to be careful in how they go about doing it, in the interest of keeping things factually correct, as well being cautious to not place blame incorrectly and/or prematurely...whether human or otherwise.

There's a difference in how we'd discuss an accident here in a public forum, versus how we'd do it in the squadron ready room.
Click to expand...
Makes sense to me. Talk about "maybe" and "what if" and "why do you think" in an open minded, respectful way and I'm OK with it.
 
TwoTwoLeft said:
I've spoke with an experienced wing walking pilot and also saw commentary from another airshow performer with a similar act. The general consensus seems to be the maneuver they were trying to pull off was not particularly safe or a good idea.
Click to expand...

Isn't this pretty easy to declare with hindsight being 20/20 and all?
 
exneophyte said:
Isn't this pretty easy to declare with hindsight being 20/20?
Click to expand...

Not really. As reckless as airshow pilots appear to be, given the nature of the act, there are certain things you just don't do. From what I've heard, for a wing walking act, a 1/2 roll for an inverted pass, that close to the ground with, the walker on the wing was one of them. Normally the pass is done with the walker in the restraint above the center section of the top wing. If they're out on the wing at all the walker is laying on the javelin.

*Edit*
I'm not indenting to ridicule the pilot or the act. That's the whole point of airshow acts is to try new things and put on a show. Look at Jonh Mohr snap rolling his STOCK Stearman on takeoff. People though he was crazy and he's proven it can be done safely over and over again.

They had to get approval for their act. The crash is not the issue. It's the result of something that went wrong in the planning. If you want to know why this happened and prevent it, you need to look at their other acts, see the sequence card and talk to their ACE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top