IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 13th November 2022, 09:30 AM   #1
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 732
6 Lives and Historic B-17 and P-63 lost in Dallas

Talking about it helps, so just wanted to start this thread.

I was at this show and saw this happen live. Still in shock really.

WARNING: Video in this link is hard to watch.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/b-...ow/ar-AA1436UH
Lerxst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2022, 10:02 AM   #2
Lplus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,362
Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
Talking about it helps, so just wanted to start this thread.

I was at this show and saw this happen live. Still in shock really.

WARNING: Video in this link is hard to watch.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/b-...ow/ar-AA1436UH
Seen a lot of videos of it on youtube. Some are saying the P63 was well outside the single seater fighter circuit. Was that your view of it?

Either way, RIP to the poor crews.
__________________

Life isn't fair, Princess; anyone who says it could be is selling a political ideology.
Whinging on internet forums is the last resort of the powerless
Lplus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2022, 02:00 PM   #3
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 732
Originally Posted by Lplus View Post
Seen a lot of videos of it on youtube. Some are saying the P63 was well outside the single seater fighter circuit. Was that your view of it?

Either way, RIP to the poor crews.
Was clearly pilot error on the part of the P-63 pilot. Situational awareness was at some point lost and i don't think he/she had visibility of the B-17 until it was too late.

At that part of the show the P-63 was part of a 3 fighter flight with two other P-51 Mustangs. Having never seen this particular show I don't know where the P-63 was supposed to be, but it happened just as the B-17 was doing a pass over the field and the fighter made a banking left turn right into the bomber. It appeared to me at least the P-63 was trying to get in behind one of the P-51s that had already passed the B-17 and was flying in front of it. Fighter had banked to nearly vertical, left wing down, and literally cut the B-17 in half.
Lerxst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2022, 05:25 PM   #4
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 13,013
Damn. Not only two irreplaceable aircraft lost, but a number of people dead as well. Hard to watch indeed.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2022, 05:36 PM   #5
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 19,669
Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
Talking about it helps, so just wanted to start this thread.

I was at this show and saw this happen live. Still in shock really.

Sorry you were there to see it. It's one thing to watch a video knowing what's going to happen. I imagine a lot of the people present thought it was a planned maneuver as part of the show, right up until the impact. The scene afterward must have been really emotional.

I hope talking about it in this thread does help.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2022, 09:01 PM   #6
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Robin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 14,015
Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
Talking about it helps, so just wanted to start this thread.

I was at this show and saw this happen live. Still in shock really.

WARNING: Video in this link is hard to watch.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/b-...ow/ar-AA1436UH
Very sad.

It's really traumatic to witness something like this - hope you're OK.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2022, 11:32 AM   #7
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 732
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Very sad.

It's really traumatic to witness something like this - hope you're OK.
Thank you, my wife and son were also there so we're all helping each other cope and deal with the trauma. No apparent cause at the moment other than the P-63 pilot didn't see the B-17 in his blind spot. Was beautiful day and all of these pilots have flown together doing countless shows. I will be very interested in what the NTSB investigation shows and will try to update this thread when those details are finally released.
Lerxst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2022, 11:56 PM   #8
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,671
NTSB Press Conference

There is video and photos from new angles, and as Lerxst states, they are hard to watch - doubly hard for an aviation enthusiast, both from the viewpoint of the loss of the experienced crews and the historic aircraft.

ETA: I'll just add that it was mercifully quick... 2Ĺ seconds from collision to ground impact.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!

Last edited by smartcooky; 18th November 2022 at 12:01 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2022, 06:32 PM   #9
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 35,218
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Damn. Not only two irreplaceable aircraft lost, but a number of people dead as well. Hard to watch indeed.
That's why I'm going out of my way to avoid watching it. Not criticizing those putting it up or watching it, I just don't want to. I should be getting a new Aviation Week soon, it may be interesting to see what they say.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2022, 11:30 AM   #10
IsThisTheLife
Muse
 
IsThisTheLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 861
What struck me was how fast that P63 was, and in a turn, it looked like it had at 150MPH or more on the B17, I can't understand how anyone would think that was OK in such crowded airspace.
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
"He could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think and that, that is our job." - Mika Brzezinski, MSNBC
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2022, 12:48 AM   #11
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,671
There is a real chance that the **** will hit the fan over this crash

There are a number of irregularities that are being investigated.

1. The show's Air Boss (Russ Royce) was not very experienced - just a private pilot with no experience in flight operations or warbird operations, who appears to have landed the job because of his father Ralph Royce.

2. There should not have been passengers on the B-17. FAA rules specify minimum crew only for display flying. For a B-17 that is pilot, copilot and perhaps one observer, but no-one else, even if they were experienced pilots.

3. The briefing (given by the Air Boss) was deficient, making no mention at all of "display lane assignments" or "altitude separation"

4. According to the display audio, the Air Boss instructed the pilot of the P-63 to accelerate to get ahead of the B-17.

Stay tuned!
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!

Last edited by smartcooky; 21st November 2022 at 12:49 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2022, 01:33 AM   #12
Lplus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,362
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
There are a number of irregularities that are being investigated.

1. The show's Air Boss (Russ Royce) was not very experienced - just a private pilot with no experience in flight operations or warbird operations, who appears to have landed the job because of his father Ralph Royce.

2. There should not have been passengers on the B-17. FAA rules specify minimum crew only for display flying. For a B-17 that is pilot, copilot and perhaps one observer, but no-one else, even if they were experienced pilots.

3. The briefing (given by the Air Boss) was deficient, making no mention at all of "display lane assignments" or "altitude separation"

4. According to the display audio, the Air Boss instructed the pilot of the P-63 to accelerate to get ahead of the B-17.

Stay tuned!
Have you been watching "Probable Cause"? That and Blancolirio are the two channels to go to for this sort of thing.

Having faster fighters turning inside bombers and closing on them on the curving approach to the display line was a recipe for disaster.
__________________

Life isn't fair, Princess; anyone who says it could be is selling a political ideology.
Whinging on internet forums is the last resort of the powerless
Lplus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2022, 01:49 AM   #13
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,671
Originally Posted by Lplus View Post
Have you been watching "Probable Cause"? That and Blancolirio are the two channels to go to for this sort of thing.
Yup. Dan Gryder and Juan Browne are my go-to guys for air incident and accident analysis.

Originally Posted by Lplus View Post
Having faster fighters turning inside bombers and closing on them on the curving approach to the display line was a recipe for disaster.
Indeed, and this is especially so if he pushes up the speed, because not only will that push out his turn radius, it will also increase the angle of attack, pushing the nose to the inside of the turn, and therefore cutting down the pilots' visibility outside the curve. While the P-63 doesn't have a particularly long nose, it is mid-engined (as in the engine is behind the pilot and the propeller is driven by a prop shift under the pilot's seat). This makes the aircraft very responsive to pitch and yaw inputs.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2022, 05:30 PM   #14
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,258
This is some of the clearest video that I've seen, which makes it clear where the B-17 fuselage separated. It is HD, slow motion, and a different angle.

Warning: Unpleasant to watch.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


I was interested in this because I wasn't sure if the B-17 pilots/passengers were killed on impact, from looking at some of the blurry videos.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.

Last edited by Warp12; 23rd November 2022 at 05:36 PM.
Warp12 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2022, 01:34 AM   #15
jeremyp
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 2,036
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
This is some of the clearest video that I've seen, which makes it clear where the B-17 fuselage separated. It is HD, slow motion, and a different angle.

Warning: Unpleasant to watch.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


I was interested in this because I wasn't sure if the B-17 pilots/passengers were killed on impact, from looking at some of the blurry videos.
It depends on where they were sitting.

Now Iíve never been in a B17 but Iíve seen a video of one carrying passengers on a paid flight. I think the pilotís and copilotís seat would have been occupied. Probably one person would have been in the bomb aimerís position in the nose. You get the best view there. The other two would likely have been just forward of the waist gunnersí positions because itís easy to put seats there.

Given the point of impact, I would speculate that everybody died when the aircraft hit the ground except possibly the two in the rear fuselage.
jeremyp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2022, 07:27 PM   #16
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,258
I stumbled across this article, related to the B-17. Interesting.

Quote:
Between 1935 and May 1945, 12,732 B-17s were produced. Of these aircraft, 4,735 were lost during combat missions.

At one time, more than 1,000 B-17s could be assembled for mass combat missions. Today, fewer than 100 B-17 airframes exist and fewer still are in airworthy condition. Less than 15 of Boeing's famous bombers can still take to the air, including EAA’s Aluminum Overcast.
https://www.eaa.org/eaa/events-and-e...bat%20missions.

It is staggering that over 4700 B-17s were lost in combat over a 10 year span. More than one-third of those produced. And of course, less than 15 still operational puts this crash into perspective.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.

Last edited by Warp12; 25th November 2022 at 07:29 PM.
Warp12 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2022, 10:57 AM   #17
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,671
Could a drone have been partially to blame for this accident?

I don't think so, although video evidence appears to show the P-63 striking an object before pitching down and colliding with the B-17.

https://eurasiantimes.com/mid-air-ho...cobra-collide/
In the latest video, the P-63 can be seen colliding with what appears to be a drone, which causes the fighter to stall*, presumably because of the engine failure. The collision or near collision with the drone forces the P-63 to change course dramatically and dive into the B-17 bomber.
I'm not yet convinced, but this is out there so I'm reporting it.

IMO, it is too difficult to tell. The video is from one angle only, and the small object the P-63 appears to "strike" could just as easily be something much closer or further away but along that line-of-sight, for example a bird.

I have looked at other videos from different angles and not seen any evidence of either an object or the violent pitch down this video appears to show. The failure to see an object in the other videos is not surprising given how small a drone or bird would be by comparison, but the violent pitch down should be obvious - and it isn't. That makes me suspicious of this video.

I would need to see that drone debris was found in or near the wreckage, and evidence of impact damage to the P-63 before accepting this as a probability.


*I should point out that aircraft do not immediately stall because of engine failure, and that hitting a drone or a bird would not likely cause immediate engine failure on a propeller driven aircraft.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!

Last edited by smartcooky; 28th November 2022 at 11:05 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2022, 11:27 AM   #18
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,208
As others have mentioned, there are two tragedies in this. One is the loss of lives and the other is the loss of irreplaceable historic aircraft. Of course everyone directly involved knows there is a risk in flying what are basically outdated aircraft.

In my view, the main fault must be either in the planning and/or execution of the flight or with the the pilots, most likely the P-63 pilot.

- The flights should be planned so that no single failure could cause the loss of several aircraft.

- The flights should be planned so that even various failures in the old aircraft should not cause catastrophic crashes.

- The pilot of the P-63 should be aware of the positions of all other aircraft in his airspace, even (or especially) those possibly in his blind zone.

As smartcooky points out, a propeller aircraft should not become immediately incontrollable even after a collision with some smaller object like a drone or bird. In particular, the P-63 with its centrally mounted engine should not be too vulnerable to such strikes.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2022, 03:42 AM   #19
Lplus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,362
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I don't think so, although video evidence appears to show the P-63 striking an object before pitching down and colliding with the B-17.

https://eurasiantimes.com/mid-air-ho...cobra-collide/
In the latest video, the P-63 can be seen colliding with what appears to be a drone, which causes the fighter to stall*, presumably because of the engine failure. The collision or near collision with the drone forces the P-63 to change course dramatically and dive into the B-17 bomber.
I'm not yet convinced, but this is out there so I'm reporting it.

IMO, it is too difficult to tell. The video is from one angle only, and the small object the P-63 appears to "strike" could just as easily be something much closer or further away but along that line-of-sight, for example a bird.

I have looked at other videos from different angles and not seen any evidence of either an object or the violent pitch down this video appears to show. The failure to see an object in the other videos is not surprising given how small a drone or bird would be by comparison, but the violent pitch down should be obvious - and it isn't. That makes me suspicious of this video.

I would need to see that drone debris was found in or near the wreckage, and evidence of impact damage to the P-63 before accepting this as a probability.


*I should point out that aircraft do not immediately stall because of engine failure, and that hitting a drone or a bird would not likely cause immediate engine failure on a propeller driven aircraft.
Somehow i doubt it. There were hundreds watching the airshow and there's plenty cof video from various angles. I reckon any drone large enough to do any significant damege would have been pointed out some while ago. I suppose a very small drone might have distracted the pilot slightly but even that sould have been seen by multiple people on the ground.
__________________

Life isn't fair, Princess; anyone who says it could be is selling a political ideology.
Whinging on internet forums is the last resort of the powerless
Lplus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2022, 09:41 AM   #20
Lplus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,362
A video with three differing viewpoints turned up on youtube channel "World is Dangerous". I don't see any drone anywhere.
__________________

Life isn't fair, Princess; anyone who says it could be is selling a political ideology.
Whinging on internet forums is the last resort of the powerless

Last edited by Lplus; 29th November 2022 at 09:43 AM.
Lplus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2022, 12:35 PM   #21
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,671
Originally Posted by Lplus View Post
A video with three differing viewpoints turned up on youtube channel "World is Dangerous". I don't see any drone anywhere.
They don't show a sudden nose-down pitching of the P-63 either.

In the original article I posted, an alleged "expert" said "I cannot clearly see the drone. What I see is the P-63 in a steep climb. The aircraft then appears to lose control. It starts to sink at slow speed as if in a stall."

There are several problems with this...

- The other videos do not show this. Rather than a steep climb, all the other videos show the P-63 in a descending left turn under power.

- The P-63 is traveling faster than the B-17, which it would not be if it was stalled. Stall speed for a P-63 in clean configuration (no gear, no flaps) is about 97 mph, while the stall speed for a B-17 clean is about 112 mph - if the P-63 is catching the B-17 while the P-63 is stalled, the B-17 would be already falling out of the sky. These two planes are clearly traveling a lot faster than stall speeds.

- As you correctly state, there is no sign of a drone in the other footage, and there were hundreds of witnesses spread out along the edge of the display corridor - they would have easily seen any drones in the air right in front of them and in the direction they were looking.

IMO, the "drone impact" video linked in my earlier post is being misrepresented, either intentionally or unintentionally in the article. The object in the video is probably a bird along the line of sight, probably at lot closer to the camera than the P-63, which would explain why it appears in only that video and no others. The sudden pitch-down is merely an optical illusion created by the rotation of the camera, and the lack of background visual clues as an anchor.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2022, 01:28 PM   #22
LongFuzzy
Critical Thinker
 
LongFuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 374
I think the blame will mostly fall on the P-63 pilot. He tried to make an inside pass on the 17 (bad idea), probably because he was approaching the center line of the runway (a hard do not cross line). The question is, why was the P-63 at the same altitude as the 17?
LongFuzzy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2022, 01:42 PM   #23
Lplus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,362
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
They don't show a sudden nose-down pitching of the P-63 either.

In the original article I posted, an alleged "expert" said "I cannot clearly see the drone. What I see is the P-63 in a steep climb. The aircraft then appears to lose control. It starts to sink at slow speed as if in a stall."

There are several problems with this...

- The other videos do not show this. Rather than a steep climb, all the other videos show the P-63 in a descending left turn under power.

- The P-63 is traveling faster than the B-17, which it would not be if it was stalled. Stall speed for a P-63 in clean configuration (no gear, no flaps) is about 97 mph, while the stall speed for a B-17 clean is about 112 mph - if the P-63 is catching the B-17 while the P-63 is stalled, the B-17 would be already falling out of the sky. These two planes are clearly traveling a lot faster than stall speeds.

- As you correctly state, there is no sign of a drone in the other footage, and there were hundreds of witnesses spread out along the edge of the display corridor - they would have easily seen any drones in the air right in front of them and in the direction they were looking.

IMO, the "drone impact" video linked in my earlier post is being misrepresented, either intentionally or unintentionally in the article. The object in the video is probably a bird along the line of sight, probably at lot closer to the camera than the P-63, which would explain why it appears in only that video and no others. The sudden pitch-down is merely an optical illusion created by the rotation of the camera, and the lack of background visual clues as an anchor.
I'd agree with this 100%

Originally Posted by LongFuzzy View Post
I think the blame will mostly fall on the P-63 pilot. He tried to make an inside pass on the 17 (bad idea), probably because he was approaching the center line of the runway (a hard do not cross line). The question is, why was the P-63 at the same altitude as the 17?
He was apparently told to make an inside pass on the B17 by the airboss. And there was apprently no preplanned altitude separation between the bombers and fighters.

That said, I suspect you are right that the pilot will be blamed, even though he was put in a position where he couldn't see a slower aircraft "below" him, simply to cover the asses of the cowboys in charge. Hopefully the FAA and NTSB will take a more balanced view.
__________________

Life isn't fair, Princess; anyone who says it could be is selling a political ideology.
Whinging on internet forums is the last resort of the powerless
Lplus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2022, 09:30 PM   #24
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,671
NTSB Preliminary Report is out...

.. and they are laying the blame squarely on the Air Boss for giving un-briefed dangerous instructions to both the bombers and the fighters to cross into display corridors that were not assigned to.


Juan Browne (YT blancolirio) explained what happened.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!

Last edited by smartcooky; 1st December 2022 at 09:31 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2022, 12:34 AM   #25
jeremyp
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 2,036
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
.. and they are laying the blame squarely on the Air Boss for giving un-briefed dangerous instructions to both the bombers and the fighters to cross into display corridors that were not assigned to.


Juan Browne (YT blancolirio) explained what happened.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
No. The report doesnít lay blame on anybody, it just lays out the facts.

It appears that the airboss gave an inadequate briefing and then made a dangerous and unbriefed call during the display but also, no pilot nor the FAA representative made any objection in either case. Itís not as simple as ďitís the airbossís faultĒ no matter that everybody is angry and wants somebody to lynch.
jeremyp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2022, 01:53 AM   #26
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,671
Originally Posted by jeremyp View Post
No. The report doesn’t lay blame on anybody, it just lays out the facts.

It appears that the airboss gave an inadequate briefing and then made a dangerous and unbriefed call during the display but also, no pilot nor the FAA representative made any objection in either case. It’s not as simple as “it’s the airboss’s fault” no matter that everybody is angry and wants somebody to lynch.
I'm reading between the lines... did you watch the video, and understand it?

Mr Browne laid out horizontal separation rules for display flying at air shows...

1. the slower aircraft (bombers) were assigned to down the 500 ft corridor (that's not altitude, that's distance from the display line, more or less where the crowd are

2. the faster aircraft (fighters) were directed to fly down the 1000 ft corridor

3. if there are faster aircraft such as fast-jets, they fly down the 2000ft corridor.

As Juan Brown stated... different, dumb and dangerous. "its when there is a sudden, un-briefed change of plan that disaster strikes". The Air Boss (inexperienced and in his first year after his father had retired from the job) directed the B-17 down the 1000 ft line, and sent the P-63 pilot to the 500 ft corridor crossing the bomber corridor..... that is ******* dangerous an absolute no-no in itself, and made even worse by that fact that there was no planned or briefed altitude separation, and none of this departure from procedure was never briefed.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!

Last edited by smartcooky; 2nd December 2022 at 02:09 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2022, 02:42 AM   #27
LongFuzzy
Critical Thinker
 
LongFuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 374
After seeing Juan's video, I retract my statements about the P-63 pilot. I guess his mistake was trusting the airboss.
LongFuzzy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2022, 03:05 AM   #28
erwinl
Illuminator
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I'm reading between the lines... did you watch the video, and understand it?

Mr Browne laid out horizontal separation rules for display flying at air shows...

1. the slower aircraft (bombers) were assigned to down the 500 ft corridor (that's not altitude, that's distance from the display line, more or less where the crowd are

2. the faster aircraft (fighters) were directed to fly down the 1000 ft corridor

3. if there are faster aircraft such as fast-jets, they fly down the 2000ft corridor.

As Juan Brown stated... different, dumb and dangerous. "its when there is a sudden, un-briefed change of plan that disaster strikes". The Air Boss (inexperienced and in his first year after his father had retired from the job) directed the B-17 down the 1000 ft line, and sent the P-63 pilot to the 500 ft corridor crossing the bomber corridor..... that is ******* dangerous an absolute no-no in itself, and made even worse by that fact that there was no planned or briefed altitude separation, and none of this departure from procedure was never briefed.
I've seen the video.

What is not clear to me is what was actually briefed during the briefing before the performance.

Did that briefing contain the normal rules, as Juan Browne says them? And did the Air Boss then improvise with the call, to cross the lines?
Or was that crossing of the lines already in the briefing?

If the latter, then the question rises, why nobody spoke up during that briefing. That could point to more things being wrong, a 'normalization of deviance' so to say.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2022, 11:20 AM   #29
jeremyp
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 2,036
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I'm reading between the lines... did you watch the video, and understand it?
Juan Browne is my goto guide on recent air disasters. and, of course I understood it. I also read the report on which he was commenting. Did you? I recommend that you do, if not - it's quite short and it is exactly as I characterised it.


Quote:
Mr Browne laid out horizontal separation rules for display flying at air shows...

1. the slower aircraft (bombers) were assigned to down the 500 ft corridor (that's not altitude, that's distance from the display line, more or less where the crowd are
500 feet from the crowd.

I would agree that is short. I don't know what the norm is in the USA but, in the UK the regulation minimum is 230 metres (754 feet). On this occasion, 500 feet was enough to ensure that none of the wreckage hit any of the spectators, although it is my opinion from watching the videos that the P63 would have got much closer to the crowd if the B17 had not been in the way.

Quote:
As Juan Brown stated... different, dumb and dangerous. "its when there is a sudden, un-briefed change of plan that disaster strikes". The Air Boss (inexperienced and in his first year after his father had retired from the job) directed the B-17 down the 1000 ft line, and sent the P-63 pilot to the 500 ft corridor crossing the bomber corridor..... that is ******* dangerous an absolute no-no in itself, and made even worse by that fact that there was no planned or briefed altitude separation, and none of this departure from procedure was never briefed.
But Juan Browne's comments were a judgement that he extrapolated from the report. I've read the report: the words "dangerous" and "dumb" do not appear in it. It makes no judgements. It apportions no blame. It just sets out the facts.

There won't be any blame apportioned in the final report either. It will just set out the proximate and root causes and make recommendations to avoid tragedies like this happening again.

I'm pretty sure Juan Brown's judgement is correct. However, where does it get us? Does it make you feel better to be able to point to somebody and say it was his fault? Wouldn't the better goal be to identify the weaknesses in the whole process that allowed this to happen and make recommendations to mitigate them?

For example, there was no briefed altitude separation. OK so that contributed. But why was there no briefed altitude separation? Well you might say that the airboss was a rookie and failed to do so, but that just raises more questions. Why was an inexperienced airboss allowed to take charge of such a complex show. How can we stop other inadequately qualified people from being put (or putting themselves) in the same position in the future. Why didn't any of the experienced pilots at the briefing call out the lack of altitude separation? It seems to me now, that everybody on the Internet knows about altitude separation, but not one of the highly experienced display pilots at the briefing said a word. Why not? What stopped them?

If you want something good to come out of these six people's deaths, we should learn from this and put processes and regulations in place to stop it from happening again and pointing at the airboss saying "it's his fault" is not it.
jeremyp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2022, 12:45 PM   #30
Lplus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,362
Having watched the latest Juan B video, I'm still astounded at the whole idea of using the flight line in both directions, with planes or groups of planes turning away and circling back to the flight line from both directions. It might be ok for a single aircraft or even a single echelon of aircraft but with multiple groups of aircraft in the air at once the planes will inevitable cross tracks, particularly with no vertical separation. The chances of conflict existed both with the crossing tracks and the fighters turning inside the bombers and thus being blind to the planes they were overtaking even before the airboss started ordering planes to change position.

The whole thing seems to have been a farrago of ****ups from beginning to end.

As to why no one questioned the briefing, I'm fairly sure Juan B or maybe Dan Gryder mentioned that questioning the briefing has a tendency to lead to exclusion from the display at the CAF.
__________________

Life isn't fair, Princess; anyone who says it could be is selling a political ideology.
Whinging on internet forums is the last resort of the powerless

Last edited by Lplus; 2nd December 2022 at 12:46 PM. Reason: The swearing checker can't cope with ****up
Lplus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2022, 01:54 PM   #31
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,671
Originally Posted by jeremyp View Post
Juan Browne is my goto guide on recent air disasters. and, of course I understood it. I also read the report on which he was commenting. Did you? I recommend that you do, if not - it's quite short and it is exactly as I characterised it.



500 feet from the crowd.

I would agree that is short. I don't know what the norm is in the USA but, in the UK the regulation minimum is 230 metres (754 feet). On this occasion, 500 feet was enough to ensure that none of the wreckage hit any of the spectators, although it is my opinion from watching the videos that the P63 would have got much closer to the crowd if the B17 had not been in the way.


But Juan Browne's comments were a judgement that he extrapolated from the report. I've read the report: the words "dangerous" and "dumb" do not appear in it. It makes no judgements. It apportions no blame. It just sets out the facts.

There won't be any blame apportioned in the final report either. It will just set out the proximate and root causes and make recommendations to avoid tragedies like this happening again.

I'm pretty sure Juan Brown's judgement is correct. However, where does it get us? Does it make you feel better to be able to point to somebody and say it was his fault? Wouldn't the better goal be to identify the weaknesses in the whole process that allowed this to happen and make recommendations to mitigate them?

For example, there was no briefed altitude separation. OK so that contributed. But why was there no briefed altitude separation? Well you might say that the airboss was a rookie and failed to do so, but that just raises more questions. Why was an inexperienced airboss allowed to take charge of such a complex show. How can we stop other inadequately qualified people from being put (or putting themselves) in the same position in the future. Why didn't any of the experienced pilots at the briefing call out the lack of altitude separation? It seems to me now, that everybody on the Internet knows about altitude separation, but not one of the highly experienced display pilots at the briefing said a word. Why not? What stopped them?

If you want something good to come out of these six people's deaths, we should learn from this and put processes and regulations in place to stop it from happening again and pointing at the airboss saying "it's his fault" is not it.
As I said, I'm reading between the lines

While I agree with everything you say here about ensuring something like this does not happen again (and in that, you are simply repeating the ultimate aim of all aircraft incident investigations) there is also the aim of identifying who, if anyone, was at fault, not so that this individual is punished but to make sure that he/she receives the necessary training so that they can clearly identify where they went wrong.

An air accident investigation reports can make recommendation that are directed to...

- The airline/operator
- The manufacturer
- The maintenance facility (when contracted)
- Air Traffic Control
- The FAA and/or ICAO
- The pilot/crew
- The aircrew training facility (when contracted)

and others

I have seen plenty of cases where the NTSB has apportioned blame (or part of it) to a person or persons who have survived the air accident, and recommended the kind of training they personally need, to ensure that he/she understands the nature of their error.

In this case, Russ Royce was inexperienced - just a private pilot with no experience in flight operations or warbird operations. There are four types of air bosses...

BAB (Basic Air Boss)
SAB (Standard Air Boss)
RAB/SV (Recognized Air Boss Single-Venue)
RAB/MV (Recognized Air Boss Multi-Venue)

It seems he was FAA approved, but I can't find what actual qualification he has.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:56 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.