Dallas Executive Mid-Air / B-17 - P-63

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

However the benefit of seeing these birds in the air is worth it IMHO.

Why? Again, six families lost people here. It was not a professional endeavor to provide food on the table for their families. It was not a grand endeavor to better humanity in some way. It is not a patriotic thing to better the country or protect it. It is pure entertainment. I find it incredibly hard to justify a loss of life for this. It seems incredibly selfish.

 

[Boris Badenov]

It was not a professional endeavor to provide food on the table for their families. It was not a grand endeavor to better humanity in some way. It is not a patriotic thing to better the country or protect it.

For my notes, which noble endeavor category did your blatting around in a geared piston twin (I'm guessing maybe 50-75 hours a year?) fall under?

 

[Wardogg]

Isnt this accident the basic see and avoid basic pilot 101 stuff. I'm not sure how any more proficiency prevents the accident. Obviously the formation itself needed some better risk management so there couldn't be just a single point failure.

 

[Brian29]

Why? Again, six families lost people here. It was not a professional endeavor to provide food on the table for their families. It was not a grand endeavor to better humanity in some way. It is not a patriotic thing to better the country or protect it. It is pure entertainment. I find it incredibly hard to justify a loss of life for this. It seems incredibly selfish.

That’s because it’s not your loss to justify. It was their choice to make not yours.

 

[Murdoughnut]

The issue with this argument is implying that these guys are weekend warriors. Most are current/former military and/or airline crews and there is a lot of experience and training involved. Most of the captains of these bombers have over a decade of flying them fairly regularly. This is NOT an amateur hour operation.

That's my bad - I should distinguish them from true weekend warriors like me. Just meant to point out that the men and women who only do this all day still manage to crash airplanes, which speaks to the overall difficulty of it.

 

[Baronman]

Why? Again, six families lost people here. It was not a professional endeavor to provide food on the table for their families. It was not a grand endeavor to better humanity in some way. It is not a patriotic thing to better the country or protect it. It is pure entertainment. I find it incredibly hard to justify a loss of life for this. It seems incredibly selfish.

They were big boys they knew the risks. The same reason I don’t fly GA and my life insurance company asks about me flying GA. We take the family wagon on our trips even though a Cherokee six would be fun. Im sure life had more meaning to them because of this endevor..

 

[CFIscare]

Why? Again, six families lost people here. It was not a professional endeavor to provide food on the table for their families. It was not a grand endeavor to better humanity in some way. It is not a patriotic thing to better the country or protect it. It is pure entertainment. I find it incredibly hard to justify a loss of life for this. It seems incredibly selfish.

I mean, people lose their lives everyday for ventures that would be considered pure entertainment.

 

[Murdoughnut]

I grew up around nursing homes - my mother was a floor nurse in one and I often spent days during the summer at work with her. My takeaway was that at some point, efforts to extend your life are working against you rather than for you. It's why I feel a little bit better when someone in their 60s or 70s passes doing something they loved compared to someone younger than that. I'm 42 with twin ten year old sons - I'm a bit more conservative in my choices than I expect I will be when they're off on their own.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

For my notes, which noble endeavor category did your blatting around in a geared piston twin (I'm guessing maybe 50-75 hours a year?) fall under?

Earning a living. It was all travel for work. And for charity.

They were big boys they knew the risks.

Easy to say when you’re not the family left to pick up the pieces. I don’t really feel all that bad for the people who made that decision and paid the ultimate price, I feel bad for their families and friends. But where I really have a problem with it is when people in the crowd get killed. They neither know nor understand the risks.

I mean, people lose their lives everyday for ventures that would be considered pure entertainment.

And I generally speak out against most of that, too. Motorcycling, bungee jumping, skydiving, etc. Unless you’re single and responsible for no one, I find it selfish and irresponsible.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

There are two ideas being conflated here, I think. Shove one in a museum somewhere, sure, but past that I'm noOTOH, when you say the operation isn't "amateur hour", well, I would argue that the giant ball of flaming debris has invalidated that position like ipso facto. That doesn't mean that the pilot(s) were to blame, but something pretty obviously didn't work right.

The problem isn’t the level of skill, it’s a problem of hierarchy. Who’s in charge in a crowd of peers? The military doesn’t have this problem.

It seems that satisfying the FAA is a pretty low bar for safety. I’ve attended a hundred air shows and worked as volunteer in a dozen. I have never been impressed with the organization of an airshow. I’ve seen and met hundreds of skilled and talented people without seeing that skill and talent properly leveraged.

In this case, going back to basics might have prevented this accident. If they would have treated fly-bys like approaches with the clearances we understand in our sleep, this accident might have been averted. They shouldn’t have cleared the bombers until the fighter fly-by was completed.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Isnt this accident the basic see and avoid basic pilot 101 stuff. I'm not sure how any more proficiency prevents the accident. Obviously the formation itself needed some better risk management so there couldn't be just a single point failure.

Can’t avoid what you couldn’t see to begin with. There are inherent limitations to see and avoid.

 

[MikeD]

The problem isn’t the level of skill, it’s a problem of hierarchy. Who’s in charge in a crowd of peers? The military doesn’t have this problem.

It seems that satisfying the FAA is a pretty low bar for safety. I’ve attended a hundred air shows and worked as volunteer in a dozen. I have never been impressed with the organization of an airshow. I’ve seen and met hundreds of skilled and talented people without seeing that skill and talent properly leveraged.

In this case, going back to basics might have prevented this accident. If they would have treated fly-bys like approaches with the clearances we understand in our sleep, this accident might have been averted. They shouldn’t have cleared the bombers until the fighter fly-by was completed.

it can indeed be a low bar to satisfy, for the FAA. Look at the B-17 crash in Connecticut, with paying passengers too. Had a “Flight Engineer” onboard who didn’t even possess so much as an FE-Recip certificate. Possessed nothing, yet acting in that capacity. Warbird crash after warbird crash, most often flown by someone with lots of money and no experience. Had one right here in Chandler years ago. Managed to put a Mustang into the side of a hangar on a go around and mort himself and his airplane. Even some high time airline pilot, the flying type doesn’t translate over to single seat high performance planes, if not coming from that background.

To this day, I won’t fly formation flights with anyone not specifically mil trained in form with high performance aircraft. Whether close formation or tactical formation. If someone doesn’t have the knowledge, training, experience, and SA for 100% of what formation flying calls for, then it’s a no go. Whether it’s basic form consisting of position, pitchouts, rejoins, cross unders (cross overs if helicopter), etc; the pilot better understand the roles, responsibilities and operations of every formation position they are going to be involved in, whether leader or wingman. And that doesn’t even get into formation takeoffs, approaches, and landings, which are their own set of knowledge, skills, abilities and SA that need to be learned, understood, and executed 100%, 100% of the time; in order to avoid getting aircraft broken and people killed.

Formation flying is not a gaggle-frack of airplanes going the same way, on the same day. It is far, far more than that. A fact many pilots not fully trained in it, don’t understand the full gravity of.

At the end of the day, the P-63 Is at fault. The question will be what factors led up to that, as in where did the pilot of the P-63 lose SA on the B-17, assuming he ever had it in the first place, and if so, why was it not corrected or regained?. If the B-17 disappeared into the large blind spot under/forward of the P-63 nose, why wasn’t that immediately corrected/regained/avoided? This was standard VMC Mk1 eyeball see and avoid, and clear your own flight path, in terms of primary factors. Sure, there are limitations to see and avoid…..namely for unplanned aircraft that are not part of your flight; it shouldn’t be an issue nor a surprise for aircraft you are flying with/around, who are part of your activity and that one should already be aware of SA-wise. Any internal comms should hopefully shed some more light on this.

it’s a stroke of luck that there were no paying passengers onboard and that this happened to be a display flight where passengers aren’t carried, and that the aircraft wreckage impacted in the infield grass inside the airport boundaries and didn’t injure or kill anyone on the ground.

 

[USMCmech]

That's my bad - I should distinguish them from true weekend warriors like me. Just meant to point out that the men and women who only do this all day still manage to crash airplanes, which speaks to the overall difficulty of it.

I'll agree 100% that flying warbirds is pretty much at the far end of the spectrum of what is considered "normal flying". These machines are nowhere near approaching todays jets in terms of reliability or safety. They are museum pieces that in some cases were inherently flawed designs and are still being operated by a dwindling cadre of people who have the expertise.

 

[USMCmech]

it can indeed be a low bar to satisfy, for the FAA. Look at the B-17 crash in Connecticut, with paying passengers too. Had a “Flight Engineer” onboard who didn’t even possess so much as an FE-Recip certificate. Possessed nothing, yet acting in that capacity. Warbird crash after warbird crash, most often flown by someone with lots of money and no experience. Had one right here in Chandler years ago. Managed to put a Mustang into the side of a hangar on a go around and mort himself and his airplane. Even some high time airline pilot, the flying type doesn’t translate over to single seat high performance planes, if not coming from that background.

To this day, I won’t fly formation flights with anyone not specifically mil trained in form with high performance aircraft. Whether close formation or tactical formation. If someone doesn’t have the knowledge, training, experience, and SA for 100% of what formation flying calls for, then it’s a no go. Whether it’s basic form consisting of position, pitchouts, rejoins, cross unders (cross overs if helicopter), etc; the pilot better understand the roles, responsibilities and operations of every formation position they are going to be involved in, whether leader or wingman. And that doesn’t even get into formation takeoffs, approaches, and landings, which are their own set of knowledge, skills, abilities and SA that need to be learned, understood, and executed 100%, 100% of the time; in order to avoid getting aircraft broken and people killed.

Formation flying is not a gaggle-frack of airplanes going the same way, on the same day. It is far, far more than that. A fact many pilots not fully rrained don’t understand the full gravity of.

At the end of the day, the P-63 Is at fault. The question will be what factors led up to that, as in where did the pilot of the P-63 lose SA on the B-17, assuming he ever had it in the first place, and if so, why was it not corrected or regained?. If the B-17 disappeared into the large blind spot under/forward of the P-63 nose, why wasn’t that immeeiqtelyThis was standard VMC Mk1 eyeball see and avoid, and clear your own flight path, in terms of primary factors. Any internal comms should hopefully shed some more light on this.

it’s a stroke of luck that there were no paying passengers onboard and that this happened to be a display flight where passengers aren’t carried, and that the aircraft wreckage impacted in the infield grass inside the airport boundaries and didn’t injure or kill anyone on the ground.

I see the similarities from this accident to the F-18 vs KC-130 crash out of Iwakuni a few years back or the F-35 vs KC-130 over SoCal. Even the military can struggle with basic formation work.

 

[MikeD]

I see the similarities from this accident to the F-18 vs KC-130 crash out of Iwakuni a few years back or the F-35 vs KC-130 over SoCal. Even the military can struggle with basic formation work.

that is a whole another Pandora’s box you are opening there, directly related to how the military is modifying and shortening undergraduate pilot training, and moving to more simulator time, in the quest to build the numbers for military pilots. These young mil guys are being sent out to operational units and getting into accidents that nearly never happened before, but are becoming more common today. Accidents involving basic air work such as form crossovers with tankers, formation takeoff and landing accidents, etc. All of them pilot error, but all of whose factors trace back to corner cutting that the military is doing in training, due to manning numbers. There are some operations, most all military operations, where corners just cannot be cut or fast-tracked.

 

[Boris Badenov]

At the end of the day, the P-63 Is at fault.

I agree with the spirit of your post, but I'm not sure this contention is in evidence. Is it likely? Yeah. But I can conceive of a circumstance in which the P-63 pilot believed (and had every reason to believe, like it had been briefed) that the airspace was clear except for him and the aircraft he was attempting to join up on. Dunno, we'll see.

 

[MikeD]

I agree with the spirit of your post, but I'm not sure this contention is in evidence. Is it likely? Yeah. But I can conceive of a circumstance in which the P-63 pilot believed (and had every reason to believe, like it had been briefed) that the airspace was clear except for him and the aircraft he was attempting to join up on. Dunno, we'll see.

those would all be contributing factors to the primary causal factor that the P-63 hit the B-17. The primary causal factor is the raw “what” of the situation that occurred. The P-63 hit the non-maneuvering B-17. Fact. Nothing else physically took down those two planes. What you are describing is what I mentioned in my previous posts of learning why that hard causal factor occurred through cockpit-visual studies, radio comms, and the like. None of those contributing factors would change the causal factor, they only serve to understand it better. That is where I was coming from in the sense of how the dynamics of accident investigation is laid out.

 

[mooneyguy]

I agree with the spirit of your post, but I'm not sure this contention is in evidence. Is it likely? Yeah. But I can conceive of a circumstance in which the P-63 pilot believed (and had every reason to believe, like it had been briefed) that the airspace was clear except for him and the aircraft he was attempting to join up on. Dunno, we'll see.

and that is a true statement. I was explaining to my wife a little of what was taking place and that it seems this is probably the fault of the P63 pilot, she (a non aviator) said how do you know the B17 wasn’t out of position? Very fair question on her part. Of course with two pilots up front you would hope they both would have been aware of their speed, altitude, position over ground, and timing of that position. regardless, sad event. I personally think something of issue here is there were aircraft from many different groups all involved here. While the air show community is small and I’m sure they all knew each how much training took place to bring these differ groups together for this close contact type of flying.

 

[MikeD]

One of my questions is, were the fighters and bombers participating together, as in a formation; or were the fighter and bombers two separate flights of aircraft, following the same “conga line” down show center? This doesn’t seem like a rejoin, what with the exceedingly high closure rate the P-63 has. If it is a rejoin, then it would be the sloppiest one ever. But that would depend on if the bombers and fighters were “together”, or if they were separate formations doing their own thing. With the P-63 seemingly chasing down one or two other fighters ahead of it, it seems more plausible that the P-63 is trying to catch up to the other fighters, as he is far outside the turn circle of the other fighters ahead of him, likely due to his high speed. It appears in one video that he’s hauling on the G’s to possibly get back into trail with the other fighters, and the B-17 has disappeared under his nose while he is in his hard turn. But again, that would depend on what the two formations were doing with regards to one another, and what any radio comms, internal or external, may reveal.

 

[USMCmech]

One of my questions is, were the fighters and bombers participating together, as in a formation; or were the fighter and bombers two separate flights of aircraft, following the same “conga line” down show center? This doesn’t seem like a rejoin, what with the exceedingly high closure rate the P-63 has. If it is a rejoin, then it would be the sloppiest one ever. But that would depend on if the bombers and fighters were “together”, or if they were separate formations doing their own thing. With the P-63 seemingly chasing down one or two other fighters ahead of it, it seems more plausible that the P-63 is trying to catch up to the other fighters, as he is far outside the turn circle of the other fighters ahead of him, likely due to his high speed. It appears in one video that he’s hauling on the G’s to possibly get back into trail with the other fighters, and the B-17 has disappeared under his nose while he is in his hard turn. But again, that would depend on what the two formations were doing with regards to one another, and what any radio comms, internal or external, may reveal.

While speculative at this point, I'd say that something along those lines is the most plausible explanation of why this happened. I honestly don't think the P-63 pilot ever saw the bomber until just before impact.

I'll be interested to hear the comms of this incident, especially from the air boss.