Plane down at Dayton Airshow

While any number of factors could be possibilities here, I'd like to see what the investigation rules in or rules out first. Because in accident investigation, one thing I've learned over the decades is that things aren't always as obvious, or as straightforward, as they may seem at first glance. Any of the ideas put forth by persons here could have some, much, or even no percentage of factor to this accident. But just remember, nothing is 100%; and it can't always be said that things "have" to be a certain way or occur in a certain way; because when it comes to accidents, things don't necessarily "have" to be anything or "have" to occur in any particular way. Just saying, be careful with instant conclusions..


The video clearly shows WHAT happened.

You're right. WHY it happened, at this point, it's unfair to the performers involved and their families to speculate.
 
This is a pilot's forum. I think that the accident can be respectfully discussed.

I agree, but the thing is we just don't know. I think the thing that worries us the most is the extensive experience the pilot had to have to be in that position and look what happened. I'm fairly positive of what happened (human factors wise), and it's far more simple than anything else anyone has suggested. It's just not my place to say it in a public forum.
 
The video clearly shows WHAT happened.

You're right. WHY it happened, at this point, it's unfair to the performers involved and their families to speculate.

And truthfully, all the video really shows in general is:

1. A Stearman with a wingwalker onboard
2. A flyby with a roll to inverted
3. another roll culminating with impact with the ground
4. an explosion and post-crash fire

Now, in conjunction with detailed frame-by-frame analysis of the video: items will be investigated such as aircraft malfunctions, mechanical or otherwise; pilot medical-related issues; any questions of airmanship, and also anything else that may have bearing such as winds/WX. As I mentioned before; all, some, or even possibly (remote) that none of these issues could be a culprit. Any and all could also be factors, but not necessarily causal.

But just be cautious to not get caught in the trap of what things should be or how they must happen. Because that doesn't necessarily apply. It's an easy trap to fall into, and it's why I've said time and again that pilots are my absolute worst eyewitnesses as well as sometimes my best, because inevitably (and unintentionally, to be fair) they tend to tell me what they think (conclusions), rather than just simply what they saw. Often, I have to ask repeatedly during interviews, "did you actually see that? Or are you drawing a conclusion?" And even then, they're usually still convinced that what they think is actually what they saw; when in reality, it wasn't. And like I said, it's done with the best of intentions to "fill in the blanks" in their mind from their own experiences; however it's also unintentionally detrimental.
 
And truthfully, all the video really shows in general is:

1. A Stearman with a wingwalker onboard
2. A flyby with a roll to inverted
3. another roll culminating with impact with the ground
4. an explosion and post-crash fire

Now, in conjunction with detailed frame-by-frame analysis of the video: items will be investigated such as aircraft malfunctions, mechanical or otherwise; pilot medical-related issues; and then any questions of airmanship, and also anything else that may have bearing such as winds/WX. As I mentioned before; all, some, or even possibly (remote) that none of these issues could be a culprit. Any and all could also be factors, but not necessarily causal.

But just be cautious to not get caught in the trap of what things should be or how they must happen. Because that doesn't necessarily apply. It's an easy trap to fall into, and it's why I've said time and again that pilots are my absolute worst eyewitnesses as well as sometimes my best, because inevitably (and unintentionally, to be fair) they tend to tell me what they think (conclusions), rather than just simply what they saw. Often, I have to ask repeatedly during interviews, "did you actually see that? Or are you drawing a conclusion?" And even then, they're usually still convinced that what they think is actually what they saw; when in reality, it wasn't. And like I said, it's done with the best of intentions to "fill in the blanks" in their mind from their own experiences; however it's also unintentionally detrimental.


A voice of moderation is welcome. Some accident reports are insightful and surprising, others introduce trivial factors and muddy the waters.
 
A voice of moderation is welcome. Some accident reports are insightful and surprising, others introduce trivial factors and muddy the waters.

There has to be moderation; as I don't want people falling into the trap I refer to. For one, at worst it simply starts drawing potentially wrong conclusions; or at best, conclusions that don't yet have any basis in fact or evidence at hand. And for two, as a prominent aviation website, we here aren't the only ones reading posts made here.....or potentially affected by what is said in them.
 
I agree, but the thing is we just don't know. I think the thing that worries us the most is the extensive experience the pilot had to have to be in that position and look what happened. I'm fairly positive of what happened (human factors wise), and it's far more simple than anything else anyone has suggested. It's just not my place to say it in a public forum.




Was the pilot somebody new for this show season?


TP
 
Out of respect for the deceased. I move that any fatal accident should be tabled for five days before it's discussed here. It's just not appropriate to discuss these things right after they happen in full motion HD video.

How does that pay respect to the dead? Why is it not appropriate for pilots to talk about an aviation accident? What is the concern? Disrespect? Moderation can address that? Inaccuracy? We aren't journalists or accident investigators. Given the overwhelming loss experienced by the friends and families of the dead, it is a incredulous, perhaps insulting, to suggest a respectful discussion could make things worse.
 
RIP... Hard to watch. Tougher on the eye & mind than Bagram 747 for sure...

Condolences to family. I too pray the kids don't see the video, but chances are they will. Even if they try to avoid it.
 
RIP... Hard to watch. Tougher on the eye & mind than Bagram 747 for sure...

How do you figure that? I think the Bagram one was tougher because those guys were doing a job that did not purposely put themselves in a situation that exponentially raised the chances of something going wrong. In regards to this accident, people purposely put themselves near the limit and capabilities of their aircraft and therefore it was not as surprising when something went wrong.
 
Really sad. I saw this plane and even helped move it away from the fuel pump at EKN a few days ago. Eerie as I wanted to take a few pics but I somehow couldn't find my phone.

RIP to both.
 
How does that pay respect to the dead? Why is it not appropriate for pilots to talk about an aviation accident? What is the concern? Disrespect? Moderation can address that? Inaccuracy? We aren't journalists or accident investigators. Given the overwhelming loss experienced by the friends and families of the dead, it is a incredulous, perhaps insulting, to suggest a respectful discussion could make things worse.

I agree 100%. If this was a knitting forum maybe but this is an aviation forum. Sadly, we all learn from others accidents.
 
Out of respect for the deceased. I move that any fatal accident should be tabled for five days before it's discussed here. It's just not appropriate to discuss these things right after they happen in full motion HD video.

The dead don't care... They are dead. If I did in a ball of flames by all means, talk away. I won't care, I'll be dead.
 
Back
Top