Plane down at Dayton Airshow

[exneophyte]

I guess what I am getting at is that when someone tries something new they are pushing the edge unless it doesn't work in which case it's "reckless". For example, Nik Wallenda is supposed to try to cross the Grand Canyon tonight on a tight rope without a safety harness. If he accomplishes it, it's an "amazing triumph." If it doesn't and something goes wrong, everyone declares it a "foolish risk."

 

[I_Money]

As far as the morals of discussing crashes on our message board - I think we all have to realize people's beliefs and emotions surrounding death are very different. In my line of work death I have learned to to detach myself from the emotions of death - someone can die, and I still want my dinner, will jam to the radio on the way home and tuck myself into bed and sleep like nothing happened. Others will be haunted by some of the deaths I have witnessed. I think we should understand we are all on this continuum so if people are comfortable talking candidly about it let them, if you don't want partake just skip over them.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

I guess what I am getting at is that when someone tries something new they are pushing the edge unless it doesn't work in which case it's "reckless". For example, Nik Wallenda is supposed to try to cross the Grand Canyon tonight on a tight rope without a safety harness. If he accomplishes it, it's an "amazing triumph." If it doesn't and something goes wrong, everyone declares it a "foolish risk."

I think you're over-generalizing a bit. I know a few airshow pilots who have a "problem" with the acts of other airshow pilots. To validate these concerns you have to look at the character of the pilots themselves. It all boils down to acceptable risk. There are some airshow pilots who have a surface waiver but never go below 250, while others will use every inch.

The point it to make the hard look easy and the easy look hard. I think the tight rope guy is a tool. He knows it's going to make it, and everything is over-hyped.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

Skip to 11:00. You can see the competed maneuver.

 

[MQAAord]

Discussion is fine. I think the problem is when people announce: "Well, it was XYZ that caused that!!", proclaiming to know with absolute certainty from viewing a 30 second YouTube clip.

So, discuss it. That's fine, but let's refrain from proclamations of authority when the REAL authorities (the trained investigators whose job it is on scene to peel back the layers and make the determination) haven't said a peep about it yet.

As in ANY accident/incident there are pretty much always multiple things that happen that all come together to create the accident/incident. We simply don't know or have access to ALL of those things, we can't, we weren't there, we weren't in the plane, we aren't on scene, [most of us] aren't trained investigators. Obviously things went very wrong for them that day, and I will be curious to learn from the investigation exactly what happened.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

Discussion is fine. I think the problem is when people announce: "Well, it was XYZ that caused that!!", proclaiming to know with absolute certainty from viewing a 30 second YouTube clip.

I think that clip will be the cornerstone of the investigation. Yes, they will comb the wreckage for evidence of engine and flight control failures, but I have a feeling the clip will be the storyteller.

And if it is, experienced pilots under direction of the NTSB will study the clip, much like experienced pilots on this forum have done so.

 

[MQAAord]

But not JUST that clip, I'm sure there are others, different angles/views. Not to mention the rest of her crew to talk to, the physical wreckage evidence, etc.

I give far more weight to trained, experienced investigators, not just pilots. Like I said, discussion is fine, but I hope that people hold off on the "Well, XYZ was OBVIOUSLY the cause of this crash!" type of stuff here.

 

[Bumblebee]

I give far more weight to trained, experienced investigators, not just pilots. .

me too.

 

[n57flyguy]

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.

*Shuts down Pitts next hangar over*

I don't think anyone knows what hangar flying is any more! Sometimes were toasting West, sometimes were hoping they make it, or sometimes were going how the hell did he get out of that?! But we talk about it and are respectful about it, understanding it is a calculated risk every time wheels are up and exponentially increases as the envelope expands.

*finishes wipe down, anyone need one?*

 

[MikeD]

I think that clip will be the cornerstone of the investigation. Yes, they will comb the wreckage for evidence of engine and flight control failures, but I have a feeling the clip will be the storyteller.

And if it is, experienced pilots under direction of the NTSB will study the clip, much like experienced pilots on this forum have done so.

The clip will simply be a piece of evidence; but its far from everything. As, for example, the clip can't say whether there may have been a medical issue with the pilot at a particular moment or not. Just as it can't neecssarily tell the other things you mention that will need to be looked into such as mechanical or other aircraft issues. All of these items are simply evidence that will make up the puzzle. And we willl see where the chips fall.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

I think there's an enormous misunderstanding in this forum between the cause of the crash and what physically occurred with the airplane.

They are not the same thing.

And if we can't talk about it, then why the hell are we all here? Just lock it down and close JC all together.

 

[MikeD]

And if we can't talk about it, then why the hell are we all here? Just lock it down and close JC all together.

Because JC exists to answer questions such as what headset to buy, what regional to get on with or not, what taco stands are best, who has the best burger, to argue about gun laws, abortion, religion, and a host of other topics that are lather, rinse and repeat.

Not about this. You need to understand that.

Seriously though, I see what you're saying and Ive addressed that. My only contention is to try and not mix the two together......yet. Until more is known. But in a number of posts, that's already happening, without anything really being known or the wreckage even having a chance to cool down. Im just asking people to be a bit cautious with that.

 

[MikeD]

I guess what I am getting at is that when someone tries something new they are pushing the edge unless it doesn't work in which case it's "reckless". For example, Nik Wallenda is supposed to try to cross the Grand Canyon tonight on a tight rope without a safety harness. If he accomplishes it, it's an "amazing triumph." If it doesn't and something goes wrong, everyone declares it a "foolish risk."

Interesting concept huh, about how people will jump on whichever bandwagon depending on the outcome. Sad, but true.

 

[tlewis95]

Skip to 11:00. You can see the competed maneuver.

I can't help but notice that they appear quite a bit higher and faster in this performance than in the accident video.

 

[MikeD]

I can't help but notice that they appear quite a bit higher and faster in this performance than in the accident video.

Would be interesting to know what the maneuver parameters were, if there was some standard for them, if they were changed, and if so, why. If they weren't changed yet were done differently this time around, why also.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

Because JC exists to answer questions such as what headset to buy, what regional to get on with or not, what taco stands are best, who has the best burger, to argue about gun laws, abortion, religion, and a host of other topics that are lather, rinse and repeat.

Not about this. You need to understand that.

Seriously though, I see what you're saying and Ive addressed that. My only contention is to try and not mix the two together......yet. Until more is known. But in a number of posts, that's already happening, without anything really being known or the wreckage even having a chance to cool down. Im just asking people to be a bit cautious with that.

Makes sense... The thing is I've lost a few fiends right before my eyes for reasons just like this, and what really chaps my ass is when people try to get into the pilots head. The one thing that helped us all deal with it was sitting around in the hangar over beers talking about it. No one had a problem with admitting "they just screwed up" and identifying where it went wrong.

Not directing this to you MikeD. Even though we are "just pilots", combined, we all had plenty of experience and we were completely qualified and within out right to discuss what we saw. We didn't need any NTSB "experts" to help us come to our conclusions. Some of us actually get paid to coach aerobatic pilots to prepare for contests, where the flying is actually way more precise that airshow flying. In one accident, where a competitor, whom I was coaching at the time had control failure and crashed. The NTSB questioned myself and his other instructor who was watching about what we SAW. Not what we heard on my radio...

To me, that is what this place is. It's just a virtual hangar. If anyone thinks I'm in the wrong, then so be it. Chances are, I wouldn't catch you around the real hangar anyway. OH NO! Is that bad networking???? I'm not going to apologize for having an opinion.

Light Speed Zulu, pretty sure a regional wouldn't want anything to do with me, the one out on the corner on Copus Rd. near Bakersfield, In-N-Out, shoot what you want, abortion shouldn't be illegal, but taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it, worship what ever god you want where ever you want to, and if I want to drink a beer alone in my hotel room that doesn't make me an alcoholic. I just might not like my coworkers enough to drink with them.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

Would be interesting to know what the maneuver parameters were, if there was some standard for them, if they were changed, and if so, why. If they weren't changed yet were done differently this time around, why also.

*DISCLAIMER* This is not speculation on what actually happened. This is just a contribution to the conversation.

In the crash video, if he was actually lower, it may have been an attempt to make up some lost energy. We don't get to see the previous figure, so it's hard to tell.

They are required to know every entry and exit altitude for every maneuver. Lets say, the plan was to roll at 250 and after the last figure they came out slow. Altitude could be used to gain some airspeed back.... Everything happens so fast. In the Stearman altitude costs airspeed and airspeed costs altitude.

 

[Bumblebee]

There really isn't an issue with stating an opinion, as such. The issue comes when there are insults or pronouncements of cause. Opinions are great and I have one or two myself but I couch them as just that. To call a young pilot stupid on here is inappropriate and really would be in most cases in a hangar as well.

In my mind the difference between hangar talk and here is that, especially in General Forums, people we don't know, potentially people close to family members or uneducated about aviation may be "eavesdropping". Saying something here without the utmost of respect for the fallen, especially when it's so fresh with folks likely to be doing searches for content on the subject, we do ourselves, our community, and aviation a disservice.

Make sure an opinion is an opinion, do not be disrespectful even if we KNOW they made a dumb mistake, we didn't pay for it ultimately, they did.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

To call a young pilot stupid on here is inappropriate and really would be in most cases in a hangar as well.

Well, Yeah... I read through the thread again and I don't know where anybody insulted or called the pilot stupid?

One thing that is NEVER tolerated in hangar talk is openly insulting a deceased pilot. If the accident was obvious, then we all get it. Why does it need to go any farther? Lets talk about what happened, how to prevent it and remembering the guy/girl for who they were.

In about a week from now it'll be 2 years ago where a buddy of mine took his girlfriend out for an evening cruise in his C180. He was flying low through the riverbed and hit a set of old telephone wires, crashed and killed them both. I was there, I saw the fire ball. No one needed to call him an idiot, we all got it. The lesson was, he wasn't familiar enough yet with the area and he was flying into the sun. One guy started talking trash, he walked out with a black eye.

 

[MikeD]

Not directing this to you MikeD. Even though we are "just pilots", combined, we all had plenty of experience and we were completely qualified and within out right to discuss what we saw. We didn't need any NTSB "experts" to help us come to our conclusions. Some of us actually get paid to coach aerobatic pilots to prepare for contests, where the flying is actually way more precise that airshow flying. In one accident, where a competitor, whom I was coaching at the time had control failure and crashed. The NTSB questioned myself and his other instructor who was watching about what we SAW. Not what we heard on my radio...

Yes, NTSB does use experts from the field or area they're investigating as expert witnesses with regards to the operation at hand or the one involved in the accident. Thats just good practice. And is very useful for its purpose. And obviously, you would be questioned on what you see or notice in that respect, why wouldn't you be? Especially if you were there and saw something. That again, is simply one piece of the puzzle that it taken in conjunction with all other pieces.

When I would be an Investigating Officer for an accident in the USAF (same as an NTSB IIC), my team always had a Pilot Member included. Even though we were both highly experienced pilots, the PM was one who was from the community of the aircraft that had the accident and was current and qualified in that aircraft/mission, but was obviously not from the same unit/wing as the accident aircraft. His job was to be my direct advisor as I wasn't always investigating an accident by an aircraft that I came from. And even though a plane crash is a plane crash, the PM was there to answer and look into the operational "why's" and such that he was intimately familiar with and that I may not be simply from not being from that aircraft's community.

So yes, the NTSB also doesn't go in and attempt to solve everything on their own without utilizing any expert witnesses for questions regarding specific operational factors; as one part of the overall investigation. Nothing new there.