B17 crash at Dallas.

Brian K said:
Here is the P-51C which was *presumably* leading the P-63, a split second after the incident. *Presumably* they were setting up for a high speed pass down the show line. This was a change-up from the previous pass where the fighters were apparently on a tighter, inside line, in close formation to each other.

GA6I6Kz.png
Click to expand...
This seems to make sense. NTSB will get many statements to compare and figure out. Wonder if they read POA?
 
Tools said:
It’s hard for outsiders to believe it could be so ad hoc.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's quite a bit of halo effect on these pseudo-household names of the GA demo scene. It's also very difficult to raise any criticism publicly without the usual suspects locking shields like a Roman testudo and setting the ad hominem .50 cal on full auto.

Talking to my IA yesterday on my way to pay for the annual, the topic of this accident came up. He's had interactions with several CAF chapters here in C and deep South TX. It's a mixed bag for sure.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The problem is you cannot accurately recreate this accident using publicly available ADS-B data. It doesn’t have the fidelity that accident investigators need.

A lot of people are trying it, but they all seem to come up with different measurements.
Click to expand...

Hmm, it’s not fantastic for super precision in-between hits, but it’s just another tool that paints a pretty good picture. Given that, nothing I’ve seen from the videos or pictures is really surprising to me. I said after the first time I saw the tracks that the fighters were in trail, moving to overtake in a descending turn, tighter than the turn of the bombers. That picture was painted using the data alone. There are other details to be revealed for sure, but the big picture is fairly clear.
 
Flying Keys said:
Hmm, it’s not fantastic for super precision in-between hits, but it’s just another tool that paints a pretty good picture. Given that, nothing I’ve seen from the videos or pictures is really surprising to me. I said after the first time I saw the tracks that the fighters were in trail, moving to overtake in a descending turn, tighter than the turn of the bombers. That picture was painted using the data alone. There are other details to be revealed for sure, but the big picture is fairly clear.
Click to expand...

Understanding of the videos may (and that's a big "may") become clearer once the written show plan becomes available. Has that plan become available? Has it been confirmed that there is such a plan?
 
Capngrog said:
Understanding of the videos may (and that's a big "may") become clearer once the written show plan becomes available. Has that plan become available? Has it been confirmed that there is such a plan?
Click to expand...

My bet is that item will specifically not be broadcast until the NTSB comes out with their final, say right around the time my 10 year old starts drawing his means-tested SS. Everybody fiddle-flocking about ADSB tracks and the P63 pilot state of mind; that ish doesn't matter. It's not like the FAA is gonna come out and put out a "sternly worded letter" imposing specific separation criteria going forward, while specifically not touching the golden ticket access these outfits have in bankrolling their flying club. If anyone thinks this is anything about the former, and nothing about the latter, they're woefully not paying attention.

What's gonna sink or float that organization's desires to continue to do this kind of flying on other people's money, is what will flesh out to the FAA about that which we are purposefully being kept uninformed about: the ground-agreed-upon so-called plan. As such, we will be the last people to know of it, unless someone whistle blows this thing and starts leaking, which I'm always a supporter of, especially the tighter a wagon-circling an organization is in the first place.
 
Capngrog said:
Understanding of the videos may (and that's a big "may") become clearer once the written show plan becomes available. Has that plan become available? Has it been confirmed that there is such a plan?
Click to expand...

Every airshow has a plan and a briefing, with an airboss, the FAA, and participants all in attendance. This briefing happened Friday, even though nobody was able to fly because of weather, out of professionalism, and safety, should the weather miraculously clear off. Then again Saturday for the show. This briefing lasted an hour to start, after which people broke up into their respective 'sections' of the show, to brief more detail. I was in the 'cargo' section of the airshow, which just preceded the "fighters and the bombers". The plan can also adapt and change in the air. The details of the briefing and the air boss tapes are the purview of the officials now, and I'm sure that information will be released when the final report comes out. But yes, there is always a plan. In fact, Doug R. posted a very good overview on Beechtalk about what goes into airshows, past and present. I don't know if it's okay to copy and paste or not, so I won't, but if you can access Beechtalk, go find his last post on the thread and read through it.
 
Capngrog said:
Understanding of the videos may (and that's a big "may") become clearer once the written show plan becomes available. Has that plan become available? Has it been confirmed that there is such a plan?
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I've said, we won't know entirely what went wrong until we understand how it was supposed to go right.
 
Heard a fun story I heard from a musician at one of Yeager’s final outings. After the performance, a guy said that General Yeager would like to meet them. They walk over and there he is, wheelchair bound and pretty clearly in mental decline. Yeager motioned them to lean closer and said, “I killed a lotta g****** Germans!” then had a good long laugh.
 
hindsight2020 said:
My bet is that item will specifically not be broadcast until the NTSB comes out with their final, say right around the time my 10 year old starts drawing his means-tested SS. Everybody fiddle-flocking about ADSB tracks and the P63 pilot state of mind; that ish doesn't matter. It's not like the FAA is gonna come out and put out a "sternly worded letter" imposing specific separation criteria going forward, while specifically not touching the golden ticket access these outfits have in bankrolling their flying club. If anyone thinks this is anything about the former, and nothing about the latter, they're woefully not paying attention.

What's gonna sink or float that organization's desires to continue to do this kind of flying on other people's money, is what will flesh out to the FAA about that which we are purposefully being kept uninformed about: the ground-agreed-upon so-called plan. As such, we will be the last people to know of it, unless someone whistle blows this thing and starts leaking, which I'm always a supporter of, especially the tighter a wagon-circling an organization is in the first place.
Click to expand...

Of course the “plan” (or lack thereof) will be the focus of conversation. But the reasons we assume that will be the case is from the video and the tracks, otherwise we’d still be talking just as much about simple loss of SA or mechanical/health.

It’s all part of the bigger picture, but you’re right, it doesn’t matter a bit what we think - we’ve just conjectured that our assumptions are in parallel with those of the investigators because of the things that are fairly obvious from those tools.
 
Eyewitness account from professional pilot spectator very close to impact: "...Just before the mid air collision, the fast movers—comprised of three P-51 Mustangs and the mishap P-63 Kingcobra—had transitioned from a four-ship echelon formation performing high passes above it all, and was executing a descending turn to put themselves in front of the bombers in single-ship passes with interval spacing. This started with what appeared to be a circular tail chase maneuver, culminating with an airshow center point pass just before the bomber flight arrived..."

https://airfactsjournal.com/2022/11/wings-over-dallas-airshow-tragedy-an-eyewitness-account-from-a-pilot/?trk_msg=RCFE7ORG8KRKLDA6UQJ7TH46U4&trk_contact=3TMRE9BKQ6RQO5KD5401RTNP1O&trk_sid=SSBNKM1C3I5QQO4EF2SM9UK6MS&trk_link=17DOMEVJEA1KRELFV9I2623AD4&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=Wings+Over+Dallas+Airshow+Tragedy:+An+Eyewitness+Account+From+a+Pilot&utm_campaign=F22113A&utm_content=Dallas+Midair+Reaction+++A+Father-Son+Flying+Adventure
 
It appears that, from FlightofTwo's post, that there was a plan, and it was adequately briefed; however, as high-lighted in Piperonca's above post, the fighters were sacrificing the safety of their vertical separation for a high speed pass in front of airshow center. If that was the plan, it ignored the relative safety of vertical separation ... not a good plan.

The bane of all well-run organizations and of competent individuals, is the dreaded "C" word, "Complacency". Complacency is insidious in that it lurks constantly in the background of all human endeavor, and it can rear its ugly head suddenly and violently. It matters little that " ... the CAF Bomber Parade had done (been flown) flawlessly and safely for decades", because the outcome of the next event is never a given. The more competent an individual or organization, the more they must be alert to the hazard of creeping complacency: "We've (I've) been doing it this way for decades ... what could happen?" Was complacency a factor in the Dallas crash? I'll go out on a limb here and say that I think it was.

The crash of the Collings Foundation B-17 "Nine-O-Nine was the tragic result of both corporate and individual complacency. A careful reading of the NTSB Report Docket reveals glaring evidence of incredible complacency within that organization.
 
hindsight2020 said:
while specifically not touching the golden ticket access these outfits have in bankrolling their flying club. If anyone thinks this is anything about the former, and nothing about the latter, they're woefully not paying attention.

What's gonna sink or float that organization's desires to continue to do this kind of flying on other people's money,
Click to expand...

Maybe a dumb question, but you got me curious, and google wasn't any help. How does the CAF fund their operations?

The main thing I'm aware of is CAF members becoming "aircraft sponsors," which allows you the opportunity to fly and/or wrench on the aircraft. Thinking about that now though, I'd imagine that probably works for something like a L-bird or otherwise low-cost warbird, but seems like that wouldn't be enough $$ for a multi-engine bomber.

Who is bankrolling CAF?
 
fasteddie said:
Maybe a dumb question, but you got me curious, and google wasn't any help. How does the CAF fund their operations?

The main thing I'm aware of is CAF members becoming "aircraft sponsors," which allows you the opportunity to fly and/or wrench on the aircraft. Thinking about that now though, I'd imagine that probably works for something like a L-bird or otherwise low-cost warbird, but seems like that wouldn't be enough $$ for a multi-engine bomber.

Who is bankrolling CAF?
Click to expand...
When the vote was held to change the name of the CAF, the main reason I saw being given was that the old name was causing corporate donations to dry up. Since they did change the name, I would guess that corporations are still a source of donations.
 
A0161485-297D-42B3-80C7-CC94CE539926.png
Piperonca said:
The fast movers—comprised of three P-51 Mustangs and the mishap P-63 Kingcobra—had transitioned from a four-ship echelon formation performing high passes above it all, and was executing a descending turn to put themselves in front of the bombers in single-ship passes with interval spacing.
Click to expand...
It was a three ship…
 
Brian K said:
I have video of the previous turn showing the fighters remaining in close formation out of the turn with altitude separation from the bombers. The video isn't great, since I had to shoot only short clips due to space constraints on the phone and also mainly focuses on the SB2C. The video ends as they go into the final turn.

Go to 14:18

WpOu0Ci.png
Click to expand...
There sure are a lot of moving parts.
 
CAF is funded by general membership dues, rides, merchandise sales and private donations primarily.

The system is set up where the pilots of any given airplane contribute substantially to its operation and maintenance, but in practice that really isn’t so. The “sponsorship” program is pretty disfunctional.
 
jbDC9 said:
I’ll bite. What/where is this so called elephant?
Click to expand...

It was right there in the post above mine, hence the "^^^^^" symbols. But my pointing is just my opinion of course. You'll have to ask him to elaborate, I won't presume to speak to the meaning of what he meant.
 
Ooookay. I still don’t see what you’re getting at. Perhaps you could directly state what you think the elephant is?
 
Capngrog said:
That so many pilots are absent at the briefing roll call is a bit unsettling.
Click to expand...
Again, last year was safe from what I observed. I was literally underneath all of that taking photos last year. And what was said by FlightofTwo. The issue with this accident does not appear to be with pilots who were NOT at the briefing but with pilots who WERE at the briefing. IMO it’s irrelevant to the thread.
hindsight2020 said:
^^^^ 9 pages and we're finally talking about the elephant in the room. *fades away to the kitchen* Lemme get the popcorn y'all...
:D
Click to expand...
It may be a problem, organizationally, but I doubt very much that it is actually relevant to the accident specifically, and I’m as aware of that organizational problem as anyone. You’ll have to try harder to pin this as causal to this particular accident. There are problems for sure, but show me an organization and someone somewhere knows the weaknesses. There is quite an irony in that the literally previous flight, the B-17 was being flown by Buddy Cooksey who was honored on his fini airshow flight retiring from 40 years of safe flying in the Tora show, often in the B-17. I may be wrong, but I think I’ve heard that Tora is one of the few actually essentially self-sustaining units in the CAF.
 
FlightofTwo said:
The pilots weren't there because the weather was bad, the planes didn't make it in, or weren't going to fly. It's not nefarious.
Click to expand...

May not be nefarious, but if true, it indicates a level of complacency in the process.

Just one of many potential links in the error chain.
 
Fearless Tower said:
May not be nefarious, but if true, it indicates a level of complacency in the process.

Just one of many potential links in the error chain.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't, and no it isn't.

There is an airshow/waivered airspace briefing every single day, for that day specifically. People and planes that aren't briefed don't fly at that day's show. Friday's weather sucked, and several of the planes were unable to get in. Several of the pilots didn't make it in. So they didn't attend the briefing and they weren't going to fly in the show. It is not complacency. I was at the Friday briefing, and the Saturday briefing, and the pilots who flew Saturday were at the Saturday briefing. The pilots involved in the accident were at the briefing.
 
FlightofTwo said:
People and planes that aren't briefed don't fly at that day's show. Friday's weather sucked, and several of the planes were unable to get in. Several of the pilots didn't make it in. So they didn't attend the briefing and they weren't going to fly in the show. It is not complacency. I was at the Friday briefing, and the Saturday briefing, and the pilots who flew Saturday were at the Saturday briefing. The pilots involved in the accident were at the briefing.
Click to expand...
Assuming that this is referring to the "elephant", this post above is exactly right. I was also at both the Fri/Sat briefings and flew in the show. All the pilots that flew the show were in the briefing.

Also, the video posted above is from the Friday show last year, 2021. Doesn't really apply here.
 
RyanShort1 said:
It may be a problem, organizationally, but I doubt very much that it is actually relevant to the accident specifically, and I’m as aware of that organizational problem as anyone. You’ll have to try harder to pin this as causal to this particular accident. There are problems for sure, but show me an organization and someone somewhere knows the weaknesses. There is quite an irony in that the literally previous flight, the B-17 was being flown by Buddy Cooksey who was honored on his fini airshow flight retiring from 40 years of safe flying in the Tora show, often in the B-17. I may be wrong, but I think I’ve heard that Tora is one of the few actually essentially self-sustaining units in the CAF.
Click to expand...

On the bolded, indeed. I concur on your take of it being a leap; of course I stipulate as such since I'm not privy to the planning dynamics.

My point deals more with the hypothetical FAA take. Say the P63 pilot just made an execution error and the dice came up snake eyes this time, in spite of everything being on the up and up on the planning side. That to me would be survivable imo, as it pertains to the bankrolling and furtherance of the necessary regulatory carve outs they enjoy. My conjecture is merely to suggest if that were not the case on the planning/organizational/ground/cultural call it what you will, then even a seemingly innocuous collision as this one could otherwise be, would not yield a flying future at all. Not with debris very publicly closing Hwy 67, which is the fundamental distinction I focus on when juxtaposing it with the Collings situation, if I was the FAA. But I'm not the FAA, so I guess we will see.
 
jbDC9 said:
Assuming that this is referring to the "elephant", this post above is exactly right. I was also at both the Fri/Sat briefings and flew in the show. All the pilots that flew the show were in the briefing.

Also, the video posted above is from the Friday show last year, 2021. Doesn't really apply here.
Click to expand...

Yes, the video is from last year's show; however, it indicates to me, if to no one else, that pilot briefings are not really mandatory for this event nor a requirement of the sponsoring organization. A verbally relayed briefing (message) will almost always differ from the original ... sometimes significantly, sometimes not. These briefings are for pilots and should be attended by pilots. Is a pilot allowed to participate without attending the briefing?
 
Capngrog said:
Yes, the video is from last year's show; however, it indicates to me, if to no one else, that pilot briefings are not really mandatory for this event nor a requirement of the sponsoring organization. A verbally relayed briefing (message) will almost always differ from the original ... sometimes significantly, sometimes not. These briefings are for pilots and should be attended by pilots. Is a pilot allowed to participate without attending the briefing?
Click to expand...
Your concerns have been addressed more than once. It's not the smoking gun, and the pilots involved were at the briefing. You're barking at the wrong tree.
 
I don't know how useful this info is, if at all, but I saw a video today that I hadn't seen before. Not sure if it's been discussed here yet. Taken from another angle, about the P-63's ~10-9 o'clock low, It depicted what appeared to be some FOD right near the prop and a pitch-down a second before impact. Little more than a couple dark "objects" in a quick few frames on a zoomed-in phone cam.

It's unclear whether this debris either came from the plane(maybe a grenading gearbox?) or maybe a birdstrike nailing the prop? Either way, the plane appeared to have distinctly, sharply pitched down at that moment, maybe a second before impact. Otherwise the trajectory looked like it was just over the B-17's path

I wish I could locate that video again, It was one of those transient Facebook reel-type things that I accidentally closed before I was able to get more info. But it would explain a lot if it has any merit. The comment section was blowing up telling the poster to reach out to NTSB. But who knows if the poster was even the original person holding the camera.
 
Last edited:
drummer4468 said:
I don't know how useful this info is, if at all, but I saw a video today that I hadn't seen before. Not sure if it's been discussed here yet. Taken from another angle, about the P-63's ~10-9 o'clock low, It depicted what appeared to be some FOD right near the prop and a pitch-down a second before impact. Little more than a couple dark "objects" in a quick few frames on a zoomed-in phone cam.

It's unclear whether this debris either came from the plane(maybe a grenading gearbox?) or maybe a birdstrike nailing the prop? Either way, the plane appeared to have distinctly, sharply pitched down at that moment, maybe a second before impact. Otherwise the trajectory looked like it was just over the B-17's path

I wish I could locate that video again, It was one of those transient Facebook reel-type things that I accidentally closed before I was able to get more info. But it would explain a lot if it has any merit. The comment section was blowing up telling the poster to reach out to NTSB. But who knows if the poster was even the original person holding the camera.
Click to expand...

Does this kind of thing happen much? Someone brings forth a new theory claiming they had evidence they can't find any longer?
Is this irresponsible?
 
4RNB said:
Does this kind of thing happen much? Someone brings forth a new theory claiming they had evidence they can't find any longer?
Is this irresponsible?
Click to expand...

If the poster was the accident investigator, and he based his findings on evidence that he is unable to produce, that would be irresponsible, as it is his responsibility to find or determine the causes of the incident. I don't see how a poster on the internet bringing up a possible theory in a thread full of theories with a few facts sprinkled in could be irresponsible, as he didn't possess a responsibility in the first place, and he made it very clear where and how he saw it.

And this is the internet, in a subtopic almost entirely dedicated to informed speculation. It happens, and sometimes, there isn't even any new evidence, purported or otherwise, to support it. :cool:
 
Piperonca said:
Eyewitness account from professional pilot spectator very close to impact: "...Just before the mid air collision, the fast movers—comprised of three P-51 Mustangs and the mishap P-63 Kingcobra—had transitioned from a four-ship echelon formation performing high passes above it all, and was executing a descending turn to put themselves in front of the bombers in single-ship passes with interval spacing. This started with what appeared to be a circular tail chase maneuver, culminating with an airshow center point pass just before the bomber flight arrived..."

https://airfactsjournal.com/2022/11/wings-over-dallas-airshow-tragedy-an-eyewitness-account-from-a-pilot/?trk_msg=RCFE7ORG8KRKLDA6UQJ7TH46U4&trk_contact=3TMRE9BKQ6RQO5KD5401RTNP1O&trk_sid=SSBNKM1C3I5QQO4EF2SM9UK6MS&trk_link=17DOMEVJEA1KRELFV9I2623AD4&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=Wings+Over+Dallas+Airshow+Tragedy:+An+Eyewitness+Account+From+a+Pilot&utm_campaign=F22113A&utm_content=Dallas+Midair+Reaction+++A+Father-Son+Flying+Adventure
Click to expand...

My comments apply to the article linked in the post, not to the text of the members post:

In the linked article it was indicated that the P63 pilot was flying the same model aircraft that his Dad flew over Nazi Germany. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I have read that the P39/P63 were never flown in combat by Americans. They ended up in the hands of the Russian Allies.

Edit, I found this which supports what I have understood about the aircraft type:

https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2016/11/24/p-63-kingcobra-post-wwii-service/
 
4RNB said:
Does this kind of thing happen much? Someone brings forth a new theory claiming they had evidence they can't find any longer?
Is this irresponsible?
Click to expand...

SkyChaser said:
If the poster was the accident investigator, and he based his findings on evidence that he is unable to produce, that would be irresponsible, as it is his responsibility to find or determine the causes of the incident. I don't see how a poster on the internet bringing up a possible theory in a thread full of theories with a few facts sprinkled in could be irresponsible, as he didn't possess a responsibility in the first place, and he made it very clear where and how he saw it.

And this is the internet, in a subtopic almost entirely dedicated to informed speculation. It happens, and sometimes, there isn't even any new evidence, purported or otherwise, to support it. :cool:
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm just SGOTI wondering if anyone else had seen the video or evidence of those circumstances being possible. Would hate to derail a 350-post thread full of 95% speculation and crapping on poor planning/briefing, bad airmanship, possible medical issues (i even saw a post implying the damn covid vaccine may have caused it) with a faint possibility that mechanical failure or FOD could have been at play. Never claimed to be DG dictating exactly what happened. :)
 
Last edited:
FlightofTwo said:
The pilots weren't there because the weather was bad, the planes didn't make it in, or weren't going to fly. It's not nefarious.
Click to expand...

Okay, so that explains WHY they weren’t there. What is important is the consequences of them not being there. Maybe their absence had no effect,….. or maybe it did.
 
Doug Reid said:
I believe he was referring to the B17, not the Cobra...I thought the same thing when I first read the article.
Click to expand...

I thought that too, so I went back and found that part of the article to reread it. It sure seemed like he was specifically referring to the P63. Again, I could be wrong, but that sure seems to me what he was saying.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Okay, so that explains WHY they weren’t there. What is important is the consequences of them not being there. Maybe their absence had no effect,….. or maybe it did.
Click to expand...
Okay, I feel like I'm talking into a vacuum, so I'll just say this and then hopefully be able to move on and let folks think what they will. For context, I am not an official for any organization, nor am I a self-proclaimed YouTube Expert, but I've flown airshows since 2008, and my husband was an Air Boss for years, so I'm not new to this stuff either.

What exactly consequence would their absence from the briefing have when IF YOU DON'T GET BRIEFED YOU DON'T FLY. The people in the accident were at the brief. Everyone who flew that day was in the brief. For the third or fourth time in this thread.

Gryder's video surprised me because it shows he doesn't know anything about air bosses and briefings, and I thought he might. Your air boss qualifications have nothing to do with pilot qualifications. He said Ralph, the dad, "may have been okay." Ralph was the Air Boss at Oshkosh for a very long time, among about every other major airshow in the country, so yeah, he was "okay". Briefings go on and on because they are very thorough, and they do cover altitudes and paths/lanes. I hope Russ goes after Gryder for the accusations, because that video was full of obvious lack of knowledge of that part of the industry and seemed more like a vendetta against an organization than an actual discussion of the actual accident, unlike the other videos that have come out, like Juan.

And with that, I'm gonna try to quit looking at this roadside accident over here...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top