A sad day in aviation

[murphyaa]

Originally Posted by Isaac

For those interested in the technical aspects of this mid-air, here is a link on YouTube. Great initial analysis.

'Wings Over Dallas' Mid Air Collision Report - YouTube




I am sure this will change future air shows just like the mid-air crash toward the crowed of the Italian aerobatic team in Ramstein Germany in 1988. The Deadliest air show in Germany | Ramstein Air Show Disaster | AVIATION CLUB - YouTube



Isaac

Juan Browne (blancolirio on YouTube) is the go to for aviation news. When I first heard of the crash, I immediately went to his channel to see his report.

I wonder how long it'll be before the FAA shuts down flying of 80+ year old warbirds in airshows.

[RyanShort1]

Originally Posted by murphyaa

Juan Browne (blancolirio on YouTube) is the go to for aviation news. When I first heard of the crash, I immediately went to his channel to see his report.

I wonder how long it'll be before the FAA shuts down flying of 80+ year old warbirds in airshows.

It won't be the FAA. More likely insurance.

[dhanners]

Originally Posted by RyanShort1

It won't be the FAA. More likely insurance.

Indeed. I know that, at least privately, NTSB air safety investigators have expressed concerns over the people flying the warbirds. Not that that was an issue here, mind you; the probable cause will take months to determine, and it may never be determined with certainty.

But a concern among air safety investigators is that while these warbirds may be old (and generally well-maintained) they are still high-performance aircraft designed to be flown by guys with the reflexes of a 20-year-old.

Granted, the people flying these aircraft are experienced and dedicated high-time aviators. They aren’t flying the aircraft in combat. But many of the planes are less forgiving of error and/or inattention than other aircraft.

Again, I want to stress these comments are general in nature and not meant to ascribe any blame or causation in this particular event. Aviation crashes are the end result of a chain of events, and we don’t know what all the links were in this collision’s chain.

[Isaac]

My initial observation was that there were so many planes making circles and flying at the same altitudes with varying speeds. I don't know how they orchestrated the event.

It would be interesting to see the NTSB report.



Isaac

[Siwi]

Came across this from the suggestion from a Mentour Pilot video (excellent channel) and it's pretty raw seeing and hearing the collision right in front of you and lives ended in seconds. If nothing else this is quite an arresting realisation of how dangerous it would have been in actual WW2 combat.



I would hate for flying warbirds to be prohibited as a consequence (at least in the US, maybe Europe would not follow suit) but the point about being tricky to handle is a good one. The video analysis might give the impression that the P-63 is an inherantly dangerous and flawed design; a better assesment is that it was devised with characteristics that if mastered would help keep a skilled pilot alive in combat, and with a tactical advantage, as that was its mission.



And presumably at some point it will become impossible for these aircraft to meet safety standards without compromising their heritage integrity - so many parts would need to be replaced that the craft is basically a replica. I am not sure how many decades aluminium can be expected to meet even gentle stresses, given that the original life expectancy was a few years at best. Future oil prices and supply might do for heritage flying as well.

[murphyaa]

That's the other thing I always wondered. Most warbirds were built quickly, by basically amateurs, and expected to only last a few months before being shot down. Longevity was not even considered in them. Also, there are no new parts. Everything is either "new old stock" that was manufactured the same time as the aircraft were, or has to be hand made.

Secretly, I'm hoping once they've crashed all of the flying warbirds, these people don't try buying non flying ones out of museums to try and get them flying again.

[Isaac]

The thing about any aircraft, is that it can always be rebuilt! All the FAA needs is the name plate for the destroyed aircraft and it matters not if 99% of the rebuilt aircraft is brand new metal. It will be allowed to fly again as long as it meets the same requirements as the original and maybe some new requirements for the interior. So in my opinion, the heritage and design/manufacture of any warbird is not an issue and most rebuilt warbirds are better than the original that was built in WW2.

What the FAA will do is to mandate a greater separation of lateral distance and altitude for any fly-by with a reduced formation joining closure angle. Thus, a formation flight will need to be established much further out with everyone flying at the same speed or only allow one plane passing at a time. If you noticed, the P-63 was still banking hard at the edge of the airfield during the collision with the B-17. Had he joined the other Mustangs he was following sooner and flatter, he would not have put himself in an extreme "box".

These are just observations by me based on my many years in aviation. Regardless of the NTSB official findings, the rules of airshow flying will change once again!

Isaac

[RyanShort1]

Originally Posted by dhanners

But a concern among air safety investigators is that while these warbirds may be old (and generally well-maintained) they are still high-performance aircraft designed to be flown by guys with the reflexes of a 20-year-old.

Maybe the P-63, but less so the B-17, but I'm not sure I even agree with that. There's a BIG difference between a 60 year old that has mostly flown airliners all his life, and a guy like Craig that grew up with planes, flew taildraggers, and has stayed active in GA and high performance for his entire life. He had been flying with Tora for years and Tora has as good of a safety record as it gets. At the end of the day, I think it's going to come out that he was still in decent health and his Tora Tora Tora performance that we also saw just before this was just fine. It was a huge procedural mistake or chain of mistakes in what should have been an easy deal.

[dhanners]

Originally Posted by RyanShort1

Maybe the P-63, but less so the B-17, but I'm not sure I even agree with that. There's a BIG difference between a 60 year old that has mostly flown airliners all his life, and a guy like Craig that grew up with planes, flew taildraggers, and has stayed active in GA and high performance for his entire life. He had been flying with Tora for years and Tora has as good of a safety record as it gets. At the end of the day, I think it's going to come out that he was still in decent health and his Tora Tora Tora performance that we also saw just before this was just fine. It was a huge procedural mistake or chain of mistakes in what should have been an easy deal.

Not questioning his ability as an aviator. I was saying, generally speaking, these were aircraft designed to be flown in combat by people with youthful reflexes. Experience doesn’t always trump reflexes.

There may well have been a mechanical issue. We won’t know for some time.

[Isaac]

The NTSB will concentrate on the P-63 pilot initially. They will explore human factors such as the pilot's health. Also, they will explore possible "tunnel vision" or "target fixation" since he followed the two P-51 Mustangs and not the B-17, so his mind may not have considered the bomber in front of him even if it was visible to him. I know this phenomenon as I almost got into a car accident at a T intersection when I did not notice a car crossing in front of me. I was still at a stop and did not move, but was startled that I did not notice the car in front of me.


As for mechanical issues, the B-17 will be eliminated from the causes since it flew straight and level. As for the P-63, it would be most likely impossible to find anything since it burned to a crisp.

Anyhow as we all said, the NTSB will issue a probable cause in about a year and a preliminary report in a few months.


The FAA will then make rules and requirement changes as needed.



Isaac