B17 crash at Dallas.

[Half Fast]

Yes, several people apparently screwed up here, with disastrous consequences. But I don't hold the whole organization responsible for that.

I do.

Anything less than the organization accepting responsibility and OWNING the problem is arm waving and finger pointing.

I know CAF has done a lot for warbird restoration. So what?

No excuses. They have to step up and take full responsibility for this. And I suspect there are many others who won't send them any money until they do.

Perhaps they will. It's early days yet.

 

[TCABM]

I do.

Anything less than the organization accepting responsibility and OWNING the problem is arm waving and finger pointing.

Don’t hold your breath for the FAA to OWN their share of the problem. That, honestly, is the bigger fish to fry.

 

[FlightmechH3]

Where's the inflight videos? Most, if not all had cameras and recording during the show, especially the B-24.

I bring this up for a reason.

 

[Half Fast]

Don’t hold your breath for the FAA to OWN their share of the problem. That, honestly, is the bigger fish to fry.

No, it's not. The FAA is what it is, and we won't be doing much to change it, and the FAA doesn't send me a letter every four or five weeks begging for a donation.

CAF has to accept responsibility. It's their planes and their people and their decision whether or not to fly. And if they want a donation from me, it's up to them, not the FAA, to convince me it's a good use of money.

In any case, it's my checkbook and I'll decide whether to send them money or not. At the moment I'm in the "not" camp.

 

[TCABM]

…In any case, it's my checkbook and I'll decide whether to send them money or not. At the moment I'm in the "not" camp.

That’s fine; I’ve never been solicited by, nor donated to CAF. Your checkbook is yours to dow with as you please, but fact remains FAA approved CAF’s plan. Like the Max debacle, yet another instance of FAA not understanding you can delegate authority but not responsibility.

 

[Albany Tom]

I know almost nothing about formation flying. But I am familiar with risk management. I don't think the Dallas crash has anything at all in common with 9o9, except that they both involved ww2 aircraft and loss of life. I only know what I've read here for Dallas. I read every document in the NTSB folder on 9o9.

9o9 made me mad. Innocent people lost their lives, and in a horrible way. People that had no understanding of the risks they were taking. In my view, 9o9 was an instance of people willfully ignoring even the most basic safety procedures, allowing a single person to be responsible for critical safety items that was unfit to do so, and allowing a bully to run a program that required intelligence, care and good judgement. Just my 2 cents.

Dallas? I see this as a group of people who collectively made some mistakes in planning, and ended up getting their friends killed. My belief is that the pilots involved were all aware of the risks that they faced, and had the capability to make informed decisions on flying the flights they did. I don't believe that anyone involved thought there was any significant risks associated with this flight. I don't know if it was accidental or by design, but no non-informed were victims, to my knowledge.

So given the limited knowledge I have, my take away on Dallas is that there needs to be independent review of flight planning for shows like this. Maybe there needs to be updated guidelines on what is and what isn't acceptable. Along the lines of changes that happen after many other tragic accidents. I don't see it as a conspiracy. I see it as thinking along the lines of "well that'll never happen", when there's no valid math behind the statement.

 

[Half Fast]

That’s fine; I’ve never been solicited by, nor donated to CAF. Your checkbook is yours to dow with as you please, but fact remains FAA approved CAF’s plan. Like the Max debacle, yet another instance of FAA not understanding you can delegate authority but not responsibility.

It’s not FAA people who are dead. CAF people, CAF responsibility.

 

[Lindberg]

Don’t hold your breath for the FAA to OWN their share of the problem. That, honestly, is the bigger fish to fry.

Oh, don't worry, the FAA will do its part by restricting these shows. And there will be a 12-page thread here about how it's an overreaction.

 

[Tools]

It’s not FAA people who are dead. CAF people, CAF responsibility.

More than half right Half Fast!

The FAA rules by negation, much as a commanding officer fights a ship.

The CAF certified they had a good plan (by what ever means). Now when they go looking and find that might not be the case as much as maybe it should have been, well, you know the drill.

The FAA lets me use any syllabus I want in my 141. They asked me to certify I meet the requirements and everyone involved meets requirements. I did…. Now it’s on my shoulders. Should my pilots start to cause problems, they’re gonna show me my signature…. they got it on file.

 

[RyanShort1]

I do.

Anything less than the organization accepting responsibility and OWNING the problem is arm waving and finger pointing.

I know CAF has done a lot for warbird restoration. So what?

No excuses. They have to step up and take full responsibility for this. And I suspect there are many others who won't send them any money until they do.

Perhaps they will. It's early days yet.

Well, they will probably want to make sure there isn't a mistake in WHAT they own, I'm sure. That will probably require some good faith effort and the dead's memorial services aren't even over yet.

Don’t hold your breath for the FAA to OWN their share of the problem. That, honestly, is the bigger fish to fry.

Or a slice of it.

No, it's not. The FAA is what it is, and we won't be doing much to change it, and the FAA doesn't send me a letter every four or five weeks begging for a donation.

Uh, at least the CAF you have the choice to NOT donate. With the FAA's parent organization, if you chose to not do so, there can be very bad consequences, because they don't like you choosing not to donate.

So given the limited knowledge I have, my take away on Dallas is that there needs to be independent review of flight planning for shows like this.

Uh, like, er, um, the FAA???

Maybe there needs to be updated guidelines on what is and what isn't acceptable. Along the lines of changes that happen after many other tragic accidents. I don't see it as a conspiracy. I see it as thinking along the lines of "well that'll never happen", when there's no valid math behind the statement.

The CAF has made a BUNCH of safety changes in the last decade, and even the in the last five years. I can see some more, and they probably aren't earthshakingly difficult. They don't want to lose people, or planes any more than some of these posters want to let them keep flying. It could honestly be as simple as a more concrete plan, but more importantly, harder lines for altitude / separation, no merging formations like that, and space for changing close formation to trail. Again, the mind-blowingly simple mistakes are the crux of this thing, but y'all forget we make mind-blowingly simple mistakes in our little GA, planes, too, and before you get sanctimonious, remember that there ought to be some fairness here. At least with airshows, there are crowd lines and separation. We, OTOH, can go stall into someone's house pretty much any day you please.

It’s not FAA people who are dead. CAF people, CAF responsibility.

If the FAA has no responsibility, then why the bleep do they have authority, then? You assume authority, you take on responsibility for those you are over.

Oh, don't worry, the FAA will do its part by restricting these shows. And there will be a 12-page thread here about how it's an overreaction.

And it will be: blatantly so.

 

[Half Fast]

If the FAA has no responsibility, then why the bleep do they have authority, then? You assume authority, you take on responsibility for those you are over.

When the dust has settled, no FAA people are dead, no one is going to defund the FAA, no legal action will be taken against FAA personnel, the FAA doesn’t have to worry about insurance, and the list goes on and on and on.

The price gets paid by CAF. Therefore the CAF has to accept responsibility for the safety of their activities.

@Tools nailed it above.

 

[Fearless Tower]

no legal action will be taken against FAA personnel.

While I think it is unlikely in this case, you can actually sue the FAA and even people in the FAA such as Air Traffic Controllers.

 

[RyanShort1]

When the dust has settled, no FAA people are dead, no one is going to defund the FAA, no legal action will be taken against FAA personnel, the FAA doesn’t have to worry about insurance, and the list goes on and on and on.

Oh, that's probably how it will be, but is that just?

The price gets paid by CAF. Therefore the CAF has to accept responsibility for the safety of their activities.

No one is saying the CAF shouldn't take responsibility, and make changes, but I'd argue that it's not binary, and the oversight agency is also partially responsible, whether or not there is a just outcome. Our system of different checks and balances happened because people make mistakes. I see the pilots, the airboss, and the FAA in the process. It's not fair to look at only two, and not look at the ONE in that party that had the ability to say "no" with very little repercussions. If the pilots say no, there's definitely peer pressure. C'mon, most of us are captain types, we want control. If the airboss says no to a plan, there's not much going to happen to him, but he maybe doesn't get asked to run the show next year? Honestly, I don't see that. But, NO ONE one is gonna make the FAA agent lose his job if he says "no" to the plan, and backs that up with something to show the boss, so the FAA rep is the one person in the chain that doesn't have to please the other two, or the crowd and organization. If they can't do that, then their presence, and rules, are a bit useless.

And no, I'm not anti-FAA. The airshow rules are generally good, the airshow monitoring people, too, but I just think this whole thing is layers on a sandwich and it wouldn't be right to ignore the possibility that they also could have stopped the accident chain.

 

[Tools]

That is also exactly correct. Just because FAA methods will almost certainly exonerate them of culpability, does not mean they were not a link in the mishap chain.

ANY link breaks, the mishap does not happen.

It is just wrong to think this (or ANY mishap) was a tragic single error event (or very short chain). Simply the result of a simple (and human) goof. It is the result of a very long chain of events. Each time you ask why, you get closer to the root cause. THAT is where change will have meaning. You can’t stop the simple goof. We all are and will forever be committing them.

Swallow pride and aid the search for the place where change will have meaning.

 

[PaulS]

The faa has no culpability in this accident, none. This flying is done on special rules, especially the paying passenger part. A lot of trust was built into getting these rules approved. This accident is on those involved, that's just the way life is. This type of flying, losely organized, multiple aircraft flying near each other at a show shouldn't allowed anymore.

 

[RyanShort1]

The faa has no culpability in this accident, none. This flying is done on special rules, especially the paying passenger part. A lot of trust was built into getting these rules approved. This accident is on those involved, that's just the way life is. This type of flying, losely organized, multiple aircraft flying near each other at a show shouldn't allowed anymore.

Then why does the FAA have a person there on the stand with the airboss wearing a headset / radio then? To look pretty for the public? Is that why they have the authority to call a "knock it off?" Are you satisfied with that as a taxpayer? Would you prefer the FAA stand by Uvalde police style and not do anything? They have "enforcement" roles, no? A lot of y'all are saying this is a "culture problem" and sure, the pilots probably should have asked for more clarity on the briefing, but the CAF leadership isn't up there on the stand with the airboss, the check and balance is the FAA guys. Also, I'm not talking percentage points. Of course the pilot(s) and airboss are gonna get high percentage points, and surely they will assign some to the .org, but none at all to the FAA oversight? I just can't agree.

EDIT May 2024 - I may have been wrong in my belief that this was an FAA guy. That said, I've been at shows where the FAA has told a performer to quit because of a show line incursion, so I think the general point still stands, but specifically I may have been wrong on the ability to transmit.

Also, ride flights and the airshow flights are separate. The ride flights weren't part of this formation mistake and ride flights don't do formation, period.



And to your second point, with a relatively minor revision about keeping flights separated by distance and altitude, this should never happen again, so that seems excessive.

 

[PaulS]

Then why does the FAA have a person there on the stand with the airboss wearing a headset / radio then? To look pretty for the public? Is that why they have the authority to call a "knock it off?" Are you satisfied with that as a taxpayer? Would you prefer the FAA stand by Uvalde police style and not do anything? They have "enforcement" roles, no? A lot of y'all are saying this is a "culture problem" and sure, the pilots probably should have asked for more clarity on the briefing, but the CAF leadership isn't up there on the stand with the airboss, the check and balance is the FAA guys. Also, I'm not talking percentage points. Of course the pilot(s) and airboss are gonna get high percentage points, and surely they will assign some to the .org, but none at all to the FAA oversight? I just can't agree.

Also, ride flights and the airshow flights are separate. The ride flights weren't part of this formation mistake and ride flights don't do formation, period.

View attachment 112760

And to your second point, with a relatively minor revision about keeping flights separated by distance and altitude, this should never happen again, so that seems excessive.

If part of the plan is " the FAA is here, if it's not safe or it's incomplete, they will stop us", then the plan really, really sucks. There is blatant stuff that I can agree the FAA should stop, like flying over large crowds, a pilot who shows up at the brief drunk, stuff like that. But expecting the FAA to be on top of scenarios like this, where the show boss apparently called an audible and directed one airplane into another is ridiculous. The blame lies with the people running the show, and unfortunately the pilots who flew into each other. That's it, hopefully none of the responsible survivors will say "but the FAA should have stopped us". If they do, then I will have zero faith in them and will support a really hard look at the rest of these organizations.

 

[RyanShort1]

So you don’t think that the reason the guy is up there is to be able to say, “hey, that doesn’t look good… knock it off?” I agree that the plan has to be better, but the airboss has a lot of authority and flexibility and no one else up in that stand beside the FAA is going to ask him to do something different.

Again, you miss that I’m not saying the accident is the FAA’s sole, or even largely their fault, but they are the ones that set the rules and provide oversight, and have the last say on the waivers, showlines, and such.

The pilots are held to the 500’ and 1000’ lines by the FAA, and trust me, pilots have heard from the FAA for busting those lines during a show before. They ARE up there acting in an enforcement capacity, and that’s for the safety of the public.

If anything, I’d almost say any airboss needs a second person as a backup and extra eyes anyway. What if the airboss had a bad sneezing fit or some other major distraction, say from the crowd next to him? Maybe that delegation of authority without a check is a major factor.

 

[PaulS]

So you don’t think that the reason the guy is up there is to be able to say, “hey, that doesn’t look good… knock it off?” I agree that the plan has to be better, but the airboss has a lot of authority and flexibility and no one else up in that stand beside the FAA is going to ask him to do something different.

If anything, I’d almost say any airboss needs a second person as a backup and extra eyes anyway. What if the airboss had a bad sneezing fit or some other major distraction, say from the crowd next to him? Maybe that delegation of authority without a check is a major factor.

I don't think it should ever get so out of hand that a single request from the airboss results in collision. Having a second set of eyes sounds like a good idea, but that is not the FAA's role here, nor should it be.

In my mind, this should be all choreographed ahead of time, with exits and safe areas should the dance become messed up. It just wreaks of amateur to me.

Your authority point is well taken. That was one of the point Gryder made, that this airboss' plan was to act as a controller real time here. FAA controllers go through extensive training and supervision working within a well defined framework before they are turned loose to practice their craft. And even while they are working, regardless of their experience level, they have a supervisor actively overseeing and will override them in an instant if necessary.

There is just a lot of moving parts for what is essentially a hobby for most of these people in these groups. Everything should be very basic and simple by default. The airshow crowds just want to see these beautiful machines fly. There is no need for any more thrills. Leave that stuff to the pros.

 

[RyanShort1]

I don't think it should ever get so out of hand that a single request from the airboss results in collision.

Agreed, but that’s actually the one point that may not be 100% possible to eliminate, except from an alert pilot, who can see the threat.

Having a second set of eyes sounds like a good idea, but that is not the FAA's role here, nor should it be.

Except again, minding the rules, such as the crowd lines, for safety sake, is exactly why they are there, and that’s a good thing. Nobody wants complete autonomy in the hands of a corporation or organization on the road for instance. That’s like asking Walmart to make their own rules and enforce their own rules for trucking. A single point of timing failure at the airboss’ stand is apparently entirely possible, and in such a way that a good pilot can miss it, badly.

In my mind, this should be all choreographed ahead of time, with exits and safe areas should the dance become messed up. It just wreaks of amateur to me.

But that is exactly what is *usually* discussed at the briefings. It seems like there were several people who thought perhaps this one was a bit deficient, but nobody, including the oversight, said anything. It looks like a breakdown on every level, to some degree.

Your authority point is well taken. That was one of the point Gryder made, that this airboss' plan was to act as a controller real time here. FAA controllers go through extensive training and supervision working within a well defined framework before they are turned loose to practice their craft. And even while they are working, regardless of their experience level, they have a supervisor actively overseeing and will override them in an instant if necessary.

True, but the airshow is a specific thing, there are apparently some airboss training and certification standards recently established and it’s different than sitting in a tower or on a scope.

There is just a lot of moving parts for what is essentially a hobby for most of these people in these groups. Everything should be very basic and simple by default. The airshow crowds just want to see these beautiful machines fly. There is no need for any more thrills. Leave that stuff to the pros.

This is just condescending, and frankly offensive. All of the dead pilots were pro pilots. The P-63 was the executive officer of Tora, which has run safe, professional, choreographed airshows for literally decades. Regarding it being a hobby - many on the airshow circuit, such as Tora, literally fly 2-3 day shows maybe as much as half or a quarter of the weekends of the year. That’s not insignificant. The irony was that this appears to have been a “simple” deal with over-reliance on the airboss for separation. They’ve done the parades every year at WOD and this *should* have been easier with LESS planes in the mix than previous years. I think the more “simple” nature and reduced numbers of planes actually caused an unfortunate relaxation of the normal precision, maybe a bit of the invulnerability hazardous attitude?

 

[Lindberg]

So you don’t think that the reason the guy is up there is to be able to say, “hey, that doesn’t look good… knock it off?” I agree that the plan has to be better, but the airboss has a lot of authority and flexibility and no one else up in that stand beside the FAA is going to ask him to do something different.

I want to clarify what you're asking for here. Is it an omniscient and omnipotent FAA "guy" at every airshow who can end the show anytime he sees something he doesn't like, and who's on a hair trigger because he's going to be held responsible for not ending a show that goes badly? Because I think that's the end of airshows.

The FAA has no particular interest in any show going forward. Once the show demonstrates a plan that provides an equivalent level of risk, it grants waivers that allow the show to proceed. If it's ultimately going to be held responsible for non-compliance with the plan, something it has no control over, what incentive is there to ever grant waivers? This is, of course, assuming the waivers were properly granted. If not, then the FAA should be held responsible for any improper action on its part. But not for other's negligence.

 

[PaulS]

This is just condescending, and frankly offensive. All of the dead pilots were pro pilots. The P-63 was the executive officer of Tora, which has run safe, professional, choreographed airshows for literally decades. Regarding it being a hobby - many on the airshow circuit, such as Tora, literally fly 2-3 day shows maybe as much as half or a quarter of the weekends of the year. That’s not insignificant. The irony was that this appears to have been a “simple” deal with over-reliance on the airboss for separation. They’ve done the parades every year at WOD and this *should* have been easier with LESS planes in the mix than previous years. I think the more “simple” nature and reduced numbers of planes actually caused an unfortunate relaxation of the normal precision, maybe a bit of the invulnerability hazardous attitude?

Actually it's not condescending at all... it makes no difference whether the pilots were "pro" pilots or not. This is not an airline, or a charter operation, it is an impressively wide variety of old airplanes piloted by what are essentially dedicated volunteers.

The groups like Tora, all fly the same airplanes, in a highly choreographed, well rehearsed airshow. Those seem to work well, although even in those operations sometimes tragic mistakes are made.

From what I see this was nothing like a Tora show, or a blue angels show, or a Tucker show. There was not much more planning than get out there, fly this pattern, and be careful. Not enough, the scary part is that all these pro pilots agreed to it. Is it a culture thing in these groups? There have been accusations that if you rock the boat in these organizations that you can lose your spot flying. If true, that certainly is not a good thing for safety.

Finally, "basic and simple" does not mean to relax your normal precision, or even think that you are any safer than an involved and complex situation. Basic and simple means that operations are predicable, don't rely on a high level of skill or require quick decisions while executing. Once again, the people watching these shows just want to see and hear these machines flying. They don't care if there are no airplanes giving the appearance of criss crossing, or if there is a 1 minute delay between aircraft flying over. KISS

 

[FlightmechH3]

Did the CAF turn over all of the cockpit videos from all of the planes to the FAA?

On another board, a pilot for the CAF went radio silent when asked about this and has never been back. Before that, he went on and on about how safe they were during airshow evolutions.

I'm guessing yes and people are clamming up.

 

[Brad Smith]

The P-63 pilot lost sight of the B-17. That’s a fact. If he was aware of it’s location, this tragedy would never have happened. There may have been issues with “The Plan”, but ultimately it’s the PIC that is responsible for the safe outcome of ANY flight. I know, nobody wants to say it bluntly, but there it is.

 

[RyanShort1]

I'm guessing yes and people are clamming up.

In think they’re just tired of the ignorance (see the Beechtalk forum post) and have already turned over what they need to to the NTSB. Ignorant and ill-considered insinuations against the CAF and those involved, aren’t going to make them more likely to give the “it was a drone” people of the world more data to misuse.

 

[Daleandee]

 

[midwestpa24]

Did the CAF turn over all of the cockpit videos from all of the planes to the FAA?

On another board, a pilot for the CAF went radio silent when asked about this and has never been back. Before that, he went on and on about how safe they were during airshow evolutions.

I'm guessing yes and people are clamming up.

First, this accident was filmed from a hundred different angles, all posted on Youtube at this point. We know very firmly what happened, its the why that they need to figure out and that is not going to be easy to figure out from watching more videos. My point is does it make a difference at this point? But yes I am sure if there is any footage available from CAF, it has been turned over the NTSB.

Second, since the CAF is party to this investigation, any of their pilots and/or members that were involved are indeed "clamming up" as they are required to and should be. None of them should be out talking about this accident as long as the investigation is open, especially not in a public forum. It isn't anything sinister, its procedure.

 

[TCABM]

In think they’re just tired of the ignorance (see the Beechtalk forum post) and have already turned over what they need to to the NTSB. Ignorant and ill-considered insinuations against the CAF and those involved, aren’t going to make them more likely to give the “it was a drone” people of the world more data to misuse.

There may also have been some legal guidance to STFU.

If I was in any way involved in the incident, it’d be a cold day in hell before I’d openly comment on it.

 

[flyingron]

If you sign on as a party to the NTSB investigation, you agree NOT to make press statements. It's part of the ticket of admission. Alas, the NTSB is a bit cavalier in who they're willing to bring in as parties.

 

[Fearless Tower]

The P-63 pilot lost sight of the B-17. That’s a fact. If he was aware of it’s location, this tragedy would never have happened. There may have been issues with “The Plan”, but ultimately it’s the PIC that is responsible for the safe outcome of ANY flight. I know, nobody wants to say it bluntly, but there it is.

In that case you’d have to say the crew of the B-17 lost sight of the P-63 as well.

Not trying to point fingers at anyone, but as more details come out, it may turn out that it was the B-17 that started their inbound run early before the fighters were done that created the conflict.

Bottom line, like most accidents, I feel the error chain on this one involves more than one individual.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Alas, the NTSB is a bit cavalier in who they're willing to bring in as parties.

Sadly, that is a very true statement.

 

[Doug Reid]

Beech Talk has an interesting video. You need to view it.

 

[Piperonca]

Beech Talk has an interesting video. You need to view it.

Synopsis? Thanks

 

[kyleb]

Beech Talk has an interesting video. You need to view it.

Beechtalk doesn't host videos as far as I know. Why don't you post the Youtube link.

If it is the "drone caused the crash" video, please don't. ;-)

 

[Doug Reid]

Beechtalk doesn't host videos as far as I know. Why don't you post the Youtube link.

If it is the "drone caused the crash" video, please don't. ;-)

The video was by Juan Brown...I believe it is on youtube. It is in reference to the NTSB report. I do not know how to post a link to this video.

 

[Piperonca]

The video was by Juan Brown...I believe it is on youtube. It is in reference to the NTSB report. I do not know how to post a link to this video.

@Daleandee beat you to it, post #468. "Dumb, dangerous, and different". First time I've seen Juan angry. Most definitive analysis so far, IMHO.

 

[Doug Reid]

My apologies to @Daleandee ...I somehow missed his post.

 

[Piperonca]

My apologies to @Daleandee ...I somehow missed his post.

You got me really excited for a minute. I jumped over to Beechtalk, was about to hit the agree button and register when I realized they wanted real name only. Since Fauntleroy Farnsworth isn’t a very common name, I was afraid of being doxxed by Googlebots and web scrapers. No Beechtalk for FF.

 

[Doug Reid]

I just happened to see that video the other day. Sorry I got you excited...I do not know anything about the author, but I thought the information was presented in a very logical manner...but what do I know

 

[Daleandee]

My apologies to @Daleandee ...I somehow missed his post.

Apologies ... nah I don't need none of that. You OK. No harm, no foul ...