Plane down at Dayton Airshow

[MikeD]

*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.

I would figure it would be standard to know all entry/exit parameters for any maneuver; no different than any acro maneuver at all. My question as it relates to the maneuver itself is, is/was there a standard set of parameters for that maneuver? Or not for the altitude part of it (if it was indeed flown at a different altitude)? And if there was, and if the maneuver was performed differently or lower from before, was that some kind of formal change made, or an ad hoc one?

 

[WacoFan]

because it's not a hangar, it is a PUBLISHED website...If you want to have that discussion make a pm and invite all you like feel free to make all the conjecture you like. Even the Lav would be better because it wouldn't pop up into someone's search engine out of the blue.

Then ultimately what is the point of JC? If it's "more than a simple forum" and is truly a gathering of friends...then why limit what is discussed? Who are the people you want to protect from seeing something? I personally haven't seen anything offensive on this thread - but my bar is admittedly higher than most.

 

[Seggy]

Then ultimately what is the point of JC?

If you are asking that, then it's clear you are wasting your time on here.

 

[DE727UPS]

After UPS flight 6 went down in Dubai (that's the 747-400 that had lithium batteries and smoke in the cockpit) the families asked that the union message board refrain from comments about the accident for a time. Remembrance posts and posts of sympathy were okay. It was an issue of showing respect to the families and fallen crewmembers.

I realize this board doesn't belong to a professional pilot group and doesn't have the same standards nor should it be run the same way a union board would be run. But I think there's an issue of respect for the families and honoring the dead. I just think it's tacky to jump right into speculation on pilot error while the metal is still warm. That's all.

 

[WacoFan]

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.

Not knowing anything about airshows from a planning/performing realm I assume that the only reason you would change is due to the crowd placement and show lines you have to maintain - which leads to my question for people more informed: How much practice do performers usually get prior to the show? Second - in a wingwalking act, would the pilot do a first run in practice without the wingwalker, simply to get familiar with the physical surroundings and to gain cues from the existing physical layout and landmarks?

Sounds like the plane and/or performers got there at some point on Friday so I'm wondering how much, if any, practice takes place prior to a performance.

 

[WacoFan]

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.

I understand and agree with a lot of what you say, and all of the sentiment behind it. One thing I've noticed here - even the most "disrespectful" crash discussion here is an order of magnitude above the typical comments section on the same crash in the local papers or Youtube comments if a video of a crash exists.

 

[WacoFan]

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.

I think this is bleed over from the kid who died with his parents in the other thread. THAT bordered on disrespectful without knowing all the facts. This thread, and your comments, have not in my opinion. Think this is blowback from the other thread.

 

[WacoFan]

If you are asking that, then it's clear you are wasting your time on here.

Wow, thanks for that Seggy - what would I do without my favorite Bolshevik, whom I disagree with on most topics, to set me straight.

 

[Seggy]

Wow, thanks for that Seggy - what would I do without my favorite Bolshevik, whom I disagree with on most topics, to set me straight.

Seriously, this place is about networking, paying it forward, and learning in a productive way. If you are questioning these easy concepts, well what are you doing on here?

 

[WacoFan]

Seriously, this place is about networking, paying it forward, and learning in a productive way. If you are questioning these easy concepts, well what are you doing on here?

Does that explain your second amendment posts? I guess I'd turn it back on you - if you think that the only thing JC exists for is "Networking, paying it forward, and learning in a productive way" then what are YOU doing here? Further, isn't part of networking the ability to get to know someone on a friendly basis so that you'd actually WANT to help them (which would move from "networking" to the "paying it forward" item)? How do people network, and how would people get to know someone well enough to want to "pay it forward" for a person without engagement on a range of topics?

 

[Bumblebee]

Then ultimately what is the point of JC? If it's "more than a simple forum" and is truly a gathering of friends...then why limit what is discussed? .

the answer was in the post you quoted....

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". ......folks likely to be doing searches for content on the subject.

and to clarify, it's not limiting what is discussed, rather the manner, tone and timing of the discussion.

 

[Bumblebee]

Moderator comment...

>you two keep your personal battle out of here. take it to PM's both of you.<

 

[Seggy]

Does that explain your second amendment posts?

It's my opinion shared in the Lav. If people want to disagree with me that's fine, doesn't mean they are a bad person.

I guess I'd turn it back on you - if you think that the only thing JC exists for is "Networking, paying it forward, and learning in a productive way" then what are YOU doing here? Further, isn't part of networking the ability to get to know someone on a friendly basis so that you'd actually WANT to help them (which would move from "networking" to the "paying it forward" item)? How do people network, and how would people get to know someone well enough to want to "pay it forward" for a person without engagement on a range of topics?

I've been to a ton on NJCs, helped people out, I've been helped out from people on here, created friendships and learned a ton about aviation as a whole on here. I know what this website is for, don't question the website and then post multiple times a day. Quite hypocritical don't you think?

 

[Skåning]

http://news.yahoo.com/fatal-accidents-wing-walkers-said-rare-062936649.html

Fatal accidents by wing walkers said to be rare

AMANDA LEE MYERS 4 hours ago

CINCINNATI (AP) — Although a Virginia woman became the third wing walker to die in two years when a fiery crash killed her and a pilot at an Ohio air show over the weekend, those in the business insist such accidents are rare and that its practitioners are meticulously careful.

Despite this, is the risk really worth it? I don't think so and having cameras everywhere lately makes disturbing videos of these events all too common. I hate seeing things like this, the bagram crash, etc. up on youtube immediately after for all to see - like a big spectacle.

 

[Vector4Food]

Stumbled across a rather disturbing photo of the crash, one of those you wish you never seen.

I won't post it here out of respect both for the dead and this is a family site, but i make this post that even something like this, some photographer is trying to become famous posting something do graphic

 

[pullup]

Seriously, this place is about networking, paying it forward, and learning in a productive way. If you are questioning these easy concepts, well what are you doing on here?

I posit that discussing crashes and its possible reasons is learning in a productive way.

 

[Bumblebee]

It's my opinion shared in the Lav. If people want to disagree with me that's fine, doesn't mean they are a bad person.



I've been to a ton on NJCs, helped people out, I've been helped out from people on here, created friendships and learned a ton about aviation as a whole on here. I know what this website is for, don't question the website and then post multiple times a day. Quite hypocritical don't you think?

This would have been GREAT without the bolded....no more.

 

[Seggy]

I posit that discussing crashes and its possible reasons is learning in a productive way.

Yes, I agree but, speculating cavalierly without any regards for the victims family isn't productive.

 

[Okie_Pilot]

114 replies. 11 only speculated what could have happened.

The other 103 consists mostly of bickering about NOT talking about it.



Welcome to JC, where you need to be a Constitutional Scholar to talk about your rights and a FAA Investigator to talk about airplane crashes.

:rollseyes:

You guys should type in "Jane wicker crash forum" on google and see the results you get. This is not the only forum in the whole wide world. As a matter of fact, it didn't even come up on the first page! Gasp! Every type of forum from mechanics, to dirt bikes, to rc airplanes are discussing the crash. But let's not discuss the crash on an actual pilot forum....?

6 pages of discussion. Mostly consists of not talking about and "this isn't what this site is for" and "Oh no, someone else on the web might read it". Really? This is what it's came to?

I'm not directly ranting at any particular person. Just a little disappointed that it's so frowned upon to have a conversation about an airplane crash.

/rant over

 

[WacoFan]

Yes, I agree but, speculating cavalierly without any regards for the victims family isn't productive.

Who is doing that on this thread? Or, is ALL speculation "cavalier"? What is the difference between cavalier speculation and asking, answering, or having dialogue about an accident, particularly one in which a video exists?