Prayers for those who lost their lives.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/six-feared-dead-as-world-war-ii-bomber-and-fighter-plane-involved-in-midair-collision-at-dallas-airshow/ar-AA142D0g?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fa00460fe48243fc8a2df1e9619e1e88 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/six-feared-dead-as-world-war-ii-bomber-and-fighter-plane-involved-in-midair-collision-at-dallas-airshow/ar-AA142D0g?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fa00460fe48243fc8a2df1e9619e1e88)
I know these aircraft are as safe as you can make them, but part of me is starting to wonder if it may be better to start grounding them.
It goes without saying that the lives lost are irreplaceable. But in this case, so are the aircraft.
Looking at the video, it happened so fast that nobody would have had a chance.
What a tragedy.
:( RIP.
QuoteI know these aircraft are as safe as you can make them, but part of me is starting to wonder if it may be better to start grounding them.
the planes and their age are not at fault. these aircraft are better taken care of then Smucks vulva. 100% pilot error.
Jesus...RIP
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 12, 2022, 10:47:41 PM
QuoteI know these aircraft are as safe as you can make them, but part of me is starting to wonder if it may be better to start grounding them.
the planes and their age are not at fault. these aircraft are better taken care of then Smucks vulva. 100% pilot error.
Yeah, I watched the video and it was pretty brutal. Even if the B-17 hadn't been there, it looked like the P-63 was due to eat the dirt. :-\
It looks like the pilot of the P-63 lost visual contact with the B-17, tried to bank left to avoid a collision but lost spatial awareness of the B-17, and tragically struck the aft fuselage behind the wing box. What an awful loss of life and a horrible tragedy for the families.
It is just a tragic loss of life. Last I read, there were 10 of them left flying in 2018. That number is down to 8 now, with two having crashed since then. At least one other B-17 crashed sometime between 2010 and 2018.
Flying in one of those with my brother has been something on both of our bucket lists for about 10 or 15 years now, but I'm starting to re-evaluate. I can only imagine how the family of the flyers involved are suffering right now.
Tragic, both human loss of life and aircraft.
Hoping investigation will determine the reason.
My father used to take me to that air show when I was a little boy. What a tragedy. RIP.
Very sad but I'll echo the, 'Pilot Error' being the cause not the age of the planes. Of course maybe the age of the pilots maybe a concern.
Man I really feel for all involved 🙁
The angle that fighter was on would have mean no looking through the floor to see the bomber. What really struck me though was how easily the fighter cut the B17 in half. Really shocking.
Thinking about it though I would have thought you would keep the bomber in view the whole time if you knew it was in the area. Turning with it or more shallowly. Easy to say in hindsite I suppose
I saw an interview on one of the news networks with an official of the FAA and she said that every airshow has to meet several criteria before it receives FAA permission to proceed. Part of that process is a complete airshow run-through to see how all the various maneuvers fit together and, while it's still early days, one possibility is that the timing was off and that one of the aircraft was either ahead or behind schedule. As Destraex pointed out, neither of the pilots could see the other plane and they just arrived at the wrong place in the sky at the wrong time. Just speculation at this point.
^ That's what I was thinking, watching the accident: it looked like a position-plan error.
I was at the Orlando Airshow a couple of weeks back. The maneuvers the planes did looked incredibly dangerous, until I realized from my angle they appeared that way. From the pilots view they were actually a good deal further apart. But at the speeds they were going, it only takes a second to make a fatal mistake. I do hope people don't use this as an excuse to beat-up on these annual shows nation-wide.
I love to see these warbirds flying as much as anyone. But over the last 11 years there have been at least 12 deadly accidents, and many lost vintage aircraft.
I know that in general, these aircraft are safe, and it is almost always pilot error, but maintenance or worn parts were noted as a contributing factors in at least two of the crashes.
Here is a list of aircraft lost since 2011:
https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-fatal-plane-crashes-20221113-t6z5bwfkzfdt7bygwgtabugwfi-story.html (https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-fatal-plane-crashes-20221113-t6z5bwfkzfdt7bygwgtabugwfi-story.html)
According to the article since 2011:
Almost 100 have been killed, and as many injured.
Vintage Aircraft lost are:
P-63 x1
B-17 x2
P-51 x3
Ju-52 x1
T-6 Texan x1
G-73 Mallard x1
Stearman Biplane x2
T-28 x1
Hawker Hunter T7 x1
As far as lives lost, of course it is a tragedy, and I think we should always be looking to make air shows safer.
Also, for the vintage aircraft, I am just suggesting that we be much more conservative with how we fly these relics around; there aren't many left. We want our grandchildren to enjoy them as well.
Im kind of in the camp that thinks they should be grounded at this point.
that could lead to a cottage industry of making full size modern replicas that can fly that would be safer for all involved.
An excellent early analysis by a former Thunderbirds commander.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rumZ1jc74f4
One of the things he mentions is that the condition/flight worthiness of both aircraft is unlikely to be a factor.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 14, 2022, 08:23:48 PM
Im kind of in the camp that thinks they should be grounded at this point.
that could lead to a cottage industry of making full size modern replicas that can fly that would be safer for all involved.
But the planes or their age had nothing to do with the pilot just losing situational awareness.
no but modern planes would have better built in safety equipment.
I don't think there'd be a lot of demand to pay to see modern aircraft flying. Unless they're modern fighter-types and who but the military can afford that. Perhaps the vintage models could be upgraded with more modern equipment?
Quote from: Sir Slash on November 20, 2022, 04:40:10 PM
I don't think there'd be a lot of demand to pay to see modern aircraft flying. Unless they're modern fighter-types and who but the military can afford that. Perhaps the vintage models could be upgraded with more modern equipment?
As Star said, I think it's time to start building / flying more replicas and these can be successful.
I think there are some good examples of successful replica shows.
Granted these are WWI oriented, but that is because there are so few original flying WWI aircraft.
The Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome in Red Hook, NY for example:
https://oldrhinebeck.org/airshows/ (https://oldrhinebeck.org/airshows/)
or to some extent the Shuttleworth Collection in the UK.
Also the Omaka Air Show in New Zealand also has many WWI reproductions.
Of course it is easier to build a WWI fighter, but I know that at least one ME-262 has been built as a reproduction.
Still, it would take some stash to build a replica B-17. However, I think once people start doing it, a cottage industry will probably grow up around it; like has happened with WWI aircraft.
Cali tech billionaires would be all over that stuff.
Quote from: ArizonaTank on November 20, 2022, 07:45:05 PM
Quote from: Sir Slash on November 20, 2022, 04:40:10 PM
I don't think there'd be a lot of demand to pay to see modern aircraft flying. Unless they're modern fighter-types and who but the military can afford that. Perhaps the vintage models could be upgraded with more modern equipment?
As Star said, I think it's time to start building / flying more replicas and these can be successful.
I think there are some good examples of successful replica shows.
Granted these are WWI oriented, but that is because there are so few original flying WWI aircraft.
The Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome in Red Hook, NY for example:
https://oldrhinebeck.org/airshows/ (https://oldrhinebeck.org/airshows/)
or to some extent the Shuttleworth Collection in the UK.
Also the Omaka Air Show in New Zealand also has many WWI reproductions.
Of course it is easier to build a WWI fighter, but I know that at least one ME-262 has been built as a reproduction.
Still, it would take some stash to build a replica B-17. However, I think once people start doing it, a cottage industry will probably grow up around it; like has happened with WWI aircraft.
We're not really comparing apples to apples here. There is not an absence of flyable WW2 aircraft at this point (so no comparison to WW1), and the majority of those that have been recently lost have not been a result of structural failure. No aircraft ever built, yesterday or today, is made to handle a mid-air collision. A replica is not going to fix that. Current safety technology like TCAS and ADS-B is extremely portable at this point, and could be easily retrofitted into a vintage aircraft as easily as it could be used in a replica. Again, not the problem. The majority of those with an interest in preserving WW2 aircraft want them in the same state that they existed in history. There would be huge push-back to implementing digital equipment in the cockpit. There is not a whole lot of interest in a "WW2" aircraft with a glass cockpit.
Let's also not ignore the fact that mid-airs have also occurred with aircraft that have all the modern toys. Sometimes bad things happen. This incident has no evidence that indicates an entire generation of aircraft should be arbitrarily grounded. Pilot error still exists regardless of technology, and I don't know that the possibility of pilot incapacitation has been ruled out, There are also thousands of GA aircraft from the same generation that are still in frequent use.
Something clearly went wrong here, but nothing I've seen to this point is the fault of the airframes involved.
there is a whole host of technology thats on the market today that would make replicas far far safer.
I understand that this could be back fitted into original warbirds but thats not the point of those aircraft.
ya, I could put a current gen Acura engine and suspension into a 2000 but who the fuck does that?
probably a bad analogy.
point being, you put F-35 helmet technology into a replica warbird and these accidents dont happen.
and that gets writ large for all airshows.
so the tower fucked up?
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on December 01, 2022, 05:13:14 PM
so the tower fucked up?
There has been nothing released to indicate that in any way.
not deconflicting two separate flights by altitude seems like a mistake.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on December 02, 2022, 03:20:05 PM
not deconflicting two separate flights by altitude seems like a mistake.
You seem to be confusing an airshow with normal airport operations. There is no ATC assigned altitudes nor radar separation during an airshow. The pilots are briefed (and practice) routines prior to the show, and that includes altitudes and routes of flight. The NTSB report's use of altitude deconfliction is in reference to what the pilots are supposed to do in the event that they find *themselves* at the wrong altitude during the flight and has nothing to do with the tower. It states that there was no deconfliction procedures during the briefing or in flight, which is unusual and worthy of note.
There is nothing in the initial NTSB report that indicates anything other than pilot error at this point. The two aircraft types (fighter and bomber) were assigned separate flight lines (500 ft and 1000 ft from the spectator viewing area). If the aircraft were where they were supposed to be, they would have been separated by at least 500 feet laterally. The report makes no mention of the planned altitudes.
Would seem more like a pre-planning error as opposed to a tower error. The report talks about pre-flight and in-flight altitude coordination and a lack of it. Would seem that this would have been the responsibility of the air boss or flight coordinator. I wonder if it is typical for air show flights to have flight plans that include altitude deconfliction.
EDIT: ninja'd by Sigwolf
Mover's thoughts and analysis of the preliminary report. Discusses altitude deconfliction at 4:12.