B17 crash at Dallas.

NoHeat said:
it’s informative, yes, but I find it distasteful that he runs ads, lots of them, in that video. Profiteering from a recent disaster - not cool IMO.
Click to expand...

Facebook runs the ads on all videos if you don't pay for the premium service. I saw no ads.
 
Several posters above have asserted Juan Browne said the bombers and fighters were instructed to fly the same lane across the show line at the same altitude.

That is not correct. He said the fighters were to fly inside the loop and south of the bombers on the loop and show line pass, which they did except for the mishap P-63. He also said he didn't know if the two groups had been assigned different altitudes, but obviously the collision occurred.
 
3393RP said:
Several posters above have asserted Juan Browne said the bombers and fighters were instructed to fly the same lane across the show line at the same altitude.

That is not correct. He said the fighters were to fly inside the loop and south of the bombers on the loop and show line pass, which they did except for the mishap P-63. He also said he didn't know if the two groups had been assigned different altitudes, but obviously the collision occurred.
Click to expand...
Yes to the "inside the turn" clarity but I am missing anything about the fighters flying south of the bombers on the show line pass. Clearly that would make sense, but also clearly was not the case at least from the ADS-B tracks shown for all aircraft, not just the P-63 (14:00 in the video shows one of the P-51s directly ahead of the B-17 on that final pass).

He also comments at 11:30 or so (discussing one of the P-51s tracks) about a lack of lateral separation between the bomber and the fighter tracks.
 
Last edited:
NoHeat said:
it’s informative, yes, but I find it distasteful that he runs ads, lots of them, in that video. Profiteering from a recent disaster - not cool IMO.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the IHOP ads and car ads? He doesn't run those, youtube does. I think they have been ramping up the ads too, so annoying, they are trying to annoy people into getting youtube premium.
 
Having been involved in many investigations involving aviation incidents, albeit none as serious as this, it is important to remember the blame never lies on one party. It is ALWAYS a systemic breakdown... the holes in the swiss cheese line up. RIP to all involved, and I hope lessons will be learned and applied. Godspeed Aviators.
 
TipTanks said:
Having been involved in many investigations involving aviation incidents, albeit none as serious as this, it is important to remember the blame never lies on one party. It is ALWAYS a systemic breakdown... the holes in the swiss cheese line up. RIP to all involved, and I hope lessons will be learned and applied. Godspeed Aviators.
Click to expand...

A strange comment since MISHAP investigations are never about blame, but about finding out what happened to reduce the risk of it occurring again.
 
Pinecone said:
A strange comment since MISHAP investigations are never about blame, but about finding out what happened to reduce the risk of it occurring again.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is strange... have you read through this thread? It is speculation on "who didn't see who" or who made the error. In reality, it goes all the way back to how something is planned, training, various other factors etc...
 
exncsurfer said:
Are you talking about the IHOP ads and car ads? He doesn't run those, youtube does. I think they have been ramping up the ads too, so annoying, they are trying to annoy people into getting youtube premium.
Click to expand...

I was unaware that YouTube had changed their policy, to run ads on all channels, even if the poster doesn't intend to monetize it. (Shows how seldom I watch it.)

When I viewed his video, it was interrupted in the middle three times, two ads each time.
 
Youtube will place ads at the beginning and end of video regardless if the content creator (Youtube account) is monetized, if the account has over a certain number of subscribers.

However, if you are seeing ads in the middle of the video, 99% of the time that means the content creator is monetized. Also, if you see an ad at the top of the recommended videos list that also is a sure sign that the youtube account is monetized.

Juan Brown has monetized his channel. He does not hide that fact (he routinely mentions how he doesn't play accident footage on many of his videos otherwise Youtube will de-monetize his video).
 
That may be, but even if someone "demonetizes" their video, youtube will play ads in the same spots, but none of the revenue will go to the person who made the video. I have no idea if the ads were from youtube or him, but I watch everything with an ad blocker (and it still works...for now) because I hate wasting time to listen to ads for things I would never buy.
 
TipTanks said:
I don't think it is strange... have you read through this thread? It is speculation on "who didn't see who" or who made the error. In reality, it goes all the way back to how something is planned, training, various other factors etc...
Click to expand...

What is strange is that someone who supposed has done many mishap investigations talks about blame. Blame is not part of mishap investigations.

Root causes are.
 
NoHeat said:
it’s informative, yes, but I find it distasteful that he runs ads, lots of them, in that video. Profiteering from a recent disaster - not cool IMO.
Click to expand...
Just wait.
 
I guess we'll have to wait for the NTSB final on whether or not planned tracks among the fighter vs bomber categories, were in fact altitude deconflicted by design.

If the answer is no altitude decon between fast and slow mover elements? #ooooooooof. I'd hit character limits on here describing how bush league a planning decision like that is in this context, nevermind coming on the shoulders of the purported experience in organizing and executing high-count formation flying this club claims to possess.
 
ASI Senior Vice President, Richard McSpadden, CFII, MEI, SES, MES, former Commander/Flight Leader for the USAF Thunderbirds, provides early analysis of an accident on November 12, 2022, when a P-63 Kingcobra and a B-17 collided in midair during the Wings Over Dallas WWII airshow in Texas.

 
NoHeat said:
I was unaware that YouTube had changed their policy, to run ads on all channels, even if the poster doesn't intend to monetize it. (Shows how seldom I watch it.)

When I viewed his video, it was interrupted in the middle three times, two ads each time.
Click to expand...
Seems to have gotten worse when they came out with the 'premium' option to cut down on ads. (if we show twice as many ads we can get more subscribers!)

Just like the youtube music app, used to play music fine with the screen off. Then they came out with 'premium' with the selling point: listen with your screen off(because they changed the app to force the screen on to drain your battery if you're not premium!)

Anyway, I digress.. haha rant over :)
 
FPK1 said:
Good video that may explain why it happened...


Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Learned so much from this presentation. Thank you. Wish it was under different circumstances. Safe flight to all.
 
Piperonca said:
ASI Senior Vice President, Richard McSpadden, CFII, MEI, SES, MES, former Commander/Flight Leader for the USAF Thunderbirds, provides early analysis of an accident on November 12, 2022, when a P-63 Kingcobra and a B-17 collided in midair during the Wings Over Dallas WWII airshow in Texas.

Click to expand...

This is without question the best analysis so far. My takeaway is that show lines are not enough. Inside aircraft must also have a hard deck (minimum altitude) to separate aircraft vertically in the event that they lose situational awareness horizontally relative to their show line. Great point about "belly checks" too. We can all learn from this accident. We all should all be doing "squared off turns" (belly checks) when in the pattern (especially base to final). Even worse is rounded turns from downwind all the way around to final (no belly check!). This of course requires the careful balance between "keeping it tight" on the downwind vs keeping some distance from the runway to allow for squared-off turns (belly checks). Keeping it too tight to the runway on downwind won't allow the time and distance necessary to do two squared-off turns from downwind to final. The trick is to find the balance. Lots to learn here. I had no idea how experienced Richard McSpadden was until I saw this video. Impressive.
 
Last edited:
Interesting differences between the AOPA and blancolirio assessments. AOPA seems to be in the camp that the fighters and bombers were supposed to be on laterally separated show lines and the P63 overshot and went into the bomber line. Juan Browne seems to believe they were using the same show line and supposed to merge but screwed up the merge. I would have been in the first camp but the ADSB data he shows seems to back him up. I’m also surprised by how sloppy the ADSB tracks look. I would have expected them to be very consistent for repeated patterns but they seem to have a lot more deviation - frankly more than I see looking at some GA pattern work tracks…
 
RudyP said:
Interesting differences between the AOPA and blancolirio assessments. AOPA seems to be in the camp that the fighters and bombers were supposed to be on laterally separated show lines and the P63 overshot and went into the bomber line. Juan Browne seems to believe they were using the same show line and supposed to merge but screwed up the merge. I would have been in the first camp but the ADSB data he shows seems to back him up. I’m also surprised by how sloppy the ADSB tracks look. I would have expected them to be very consistent for repeated patterns but they seem to have a lot more deviation - frankly more than I see looking at some GA pattern work tracks…
Click to expand...

I think that will be the crux of the root cause analysis - was the merging of lanes planned and botched or was the merge unplanned and the lanes were violated?
 
Flying Keys said:
I think that will be the crux of the root cause analysis - was the merging of lanes planned and botched or was the merge unplanned and the lanes were violated?
Click to expand...
Or will it focus on a third root cause? Why wasn't there a built-in altitude separation of even potentially merging aircraft?
 
dbahn said:
Why wasn't there a built-in altitude separation of even potentially merging aircraft?
Click to expand...
Also, shouldn't they be merging at different focal points by having the outside loop intercept a longer final than the inside loop (not to mention moving canopied aircraft to the outer track)?
 
dtuuri said:
Also, shouldn't they be merging at different focal points by having the outside loop intercept a longer final than the inside loop (not to mention moving canopied aircraft to the outer track)?
Click to expand...
Don't forget to throw in the constant altitude change during the turn. They were doing sort of a lazy wing over type turn.
 
dbahn said:
Or will it focus on a third root cause? Why wasn't there a built-in altitude separation of even potentially merging aircraft?
Click to expand...

I think I’d lump altitude into the merging of lanes, at a higher level. Call it general path deconfliction versus focusing on lateral track alone.
 
IIRC, they laterally and horizontally separate the heavies from the fighter/attack/patrol aircraft at Oshkosh. I distinctly remember especially during the 75th anniversary of Doolittle's Raid at Oshkosh 2017 that they had the B-25s and B-29s in their own racetracks at one elevation, and all the P-51s/P-47s/etc. on their own quite separate track and elevation. They never had the bombers occupying the same flight line (down the runway) as the smaller planes. Hell, they even kept the -25s away from the -29s. And the racetracks were true racetracks (usually), not the dumbbell patterns we see here.

Going to be really interesting to see what comes of this. It's just... awful all the way around. I was out hunting when my phone lit up with notifications. Never in a million years would I have guessed it was going to be this.

Very much hoping that we learn a lot of lessons from this, and that this doesn't ground warbird fleets and end demo's like this - but changes them to be much safer.
 
Yeah, you can go ahead and pencil me in on that third camp, the camp that says it's the lack of vertical deconfliction plan, that's gonna do the CAF in.

Wholly inappropriate to have relied on lateral decon only with such dissimilar elements. It bakes the collision in; one look at the ADSB track variances screams it even for the uninitiated who can't visualize these turn circle geometries from the video evidence alone.

I'm still hopeful this is just a lack of information on our part, and that they will eventually illustrate to investigators that the planners did have a vertical plan briefed. If the answer is legitimately no? It's good night irene for the CAF imo. And it would be deserved too; zero excuse to have these elements rubber-banding at the same altitude. Absolute bush league plan. And if it's a case of "well, they got away with it before so what's the problem?", then consider their grounding as late payment, with penalty interest tacked on for prior imprudence.

I think focusing on the P-63 pilot error execution aspect is rather banal, though I understand it's the portion that elicits the most morbid curiosity from the peanut gallery. It's certainly not what's gonna do them in, counter-intuitive as it may be to bystanders.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Yeah, you can go ahead and pencil me in on that third camp, the camp that says it's the lack of vertical deconfliction plan, that's gonna do the CAF in.

Wholly inappropriate to have relied on lateral decon only with such dissimilar elements. It bakes the collision in; one look at the ADSB track variances screams it even for the uninitiated who can't visualize these turn circle geometries from the video evidence alone.

I'm still hopeful this is just a lack of information on our part, and that they will eventually illustrate to investigators that the planners did have a vertical plan briefed. If the answer is legitimately no? It's good night irene for the CAF imo. And it would be deserved too; zero excuse to have these elements rubber-banding at the same altitude. Absolute bush league plan. And if it's a case of "well, they got away with it before so what's the problem?", then consider their grounding as late payment, with penalty interest tacked on for prior imprudence.

I think focusing on the P-63 pilot error execution aspect is rather banal, though I understand it's the portion that elicits the most morbid curiosity from the peanut gallery. It's certainly not what's gonna do them in, counter-intuitive as it may be to bystanders.
Click to expand...
Username checks out.
 
Doesn’t an FAA rep have input or even a yay/nay call on air show planning? If the plan was lacking, anyone involved is going to have questions to answer.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Yeah, you can go ahead and pencil me in on that third camp, the camp that says it's the lack of vertical deconfliction plan, that's gonna do the CAF in.

Wholly inappropriate to have relied on lateral decon only with such dissimilar elements. It bakes the collision in; one look at the ADSB track variances screams it even for the uninitiated who can't visualize these turn circle geometries from the video evidence alone.

I'm still hopeful this is just a lack of information on our part, and that they will eventually illustrate to investigators that the planners did have a vertical plan briefed. If the answer is legitimately no? It's good night irene for the CAF imo. And it would be deserved too; zero excuse to have these elements rubber-banding at the same altitude. Absolute bush league plan. And if it's a case of "well, they got away with it before so what's the problem?", then consider their grounding as late payment, with penalty interest tacked on for prior imprudence.

I think focusing on the P-63 pilot error execution aspect is rather banal, though I understand it's the portion that elicits the most morbid curiosity from the peanut gallery. It's certainly not what's gonna do them in, counter-intuitive as it may be to bystanders.
Click to expand...

Again, my high level intent was to proffer two possibilities. General lane deconfliction includes lateral and vertical, and there’s not really a third option except perhaps medical or mechanical, which I think is extremely unlikely.

When you dig in to the next level, those details like vertical and lateral become relevant, but the point was - did the accident occur due to a lack of an effective deconfliction plan, or was there a plan, but it was not followed/executed properly?
 
kyleb said:
Doesn’t an FAA rep have input or even a yay/nay call on air show planning? If the plan was lacking, anyone involved is going to have questions to answer.
Click to expand...

Yes the FSDO would have reviewed the plan and had reps at the brief.

This investigation is going to focus on a few key things: what was supposed to happen (ie the intended plan) vs what was briefed vs what actually happened.

None of us have access to the info to address those questions.

No one who was part of the planning or in attendance at the brief is talking (understandably and rightly so) so all we have to speculate on is the videos and publicly available ADS-B data (which is limited in accuracy).

I’m a strong proponent of speculative discussion on accidents to understand what happened, but I think in this case, we’ve reached the limit of our armchair investigative abilities.

On a positive note, this thread is much more civil than the ongoing discussion over on Beechtalk…
 
This gonna sound odd, but here is an opinion:

There is this verse that may be unfamiliar to some:

John 18:14 KJV
Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

There are things that don't exactly parallel, but Caiaphas was regarded as a wise man, and I think that there is a parallel.

I believe that everyone involved loved Warbirds and loved what they were doing and if asked individually each would profess that they hope warbirds keep flying and that airshows continue.

In today’s litigious society key players have probably already lawyered up and a bunch of people have probably been told to keep their mouth shut.

My question is: At the end of the day does that actually accomplish the desired result? Does no taking of responsibility, and extended court battles save ANYTHING in the long run?

It is my belief that if one or two or five or 10 people know in their heart that this was a mistake that they could have prevented they need to get together and sit down and make a statement that it was a tragic loss, a mistake, an accident that should not have happened, that cost the life of their friends, and that this should not reflect on the entire organization. I believe at the end of the day this would be the best way to fix the PR nightmare that this event is, and would probably end up with no worse outcome for them emotionally or financially. I would believe anyone making such a statement because I don’t believe that anyone at that show who was a participant wanted that to happen and we all know that we all can make a mistake - none of us is above that possibility.

It would be great if the FAA also owned a little piece of this instead of slapping down more regs. I would far rather them tighten up on existing rules and oversight if needed than come down with something even more draconian. I’m pretty sure that at airshows I’ve been in the FAA has the ability to call a “knock it off.” If the more complicated Tora show has been run successfully for decades, there is no reason why this bomber and fighters loop should have been *more* dangerous.

Also, I don’t want anyone else to die at all - the verse is meant figuratively. I hope that those involved know that we understand that mistakes can happen and if they bear any guilt we want them to keep living because they are family, too.

Own mistakes, and don’t think that silence and lawyers is ultimately gonna make your life easier.
 
Last edited:
RyanShort1 said:
This gonna sound odd, but here is an opinion:

There is this obscure verse:

John 18:14 KJV
Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

I believe that everyone involved loved Warbirds and loved what they were doing and if asked individually each would profess that they hope warbirds keep flying and that airshows continue.

In today’s litigious society key players have probably already lawyered up and a bunch of people have probably been told to keep their mouth shut. My question is, at the end of the day does that actually accomplish the desired result?

It is my belief that if one or two or five or 10 people know in their heart that this was a mistake that they could have prevented they need to get together and sit down and make a statement that it was a tragic loss, a mistake, an accident that should not have happened and should not reflect on the entire organization. I believe at the end of the day this would be the best way to fix the PR nightmare that this event is, and would probably end up with no worse outcome for them emotionally or financially. I will believe them because I don’t believe that anyone at that show who was a participant wanted that to happen and we all know that we all can make a mistake - none of us is above that possibility.

It would be great if the FAA also owned a little piece of this instead of slapping down more regs. I would far rather them tighten up on existing rules and oversight if needed than come down with something even more draconian. I’m pretty sure that at airshows I’ve been in the FAA has the ability to call a “knock it off.” If Tora has been run successfully for decades, there is no reason why this bomber and fighters loop should have been *more* dangerous.

Also, I don’t want anyone else to die at all - the verse is meant figuratively. I hope that those involved know that we understand that mistakes can happen and if they bear any guilt we want them to keep living because they are family, too.

Be a man, own mistakes, and don’t think that silence and lawyers is ultimately gonna make your life easier.
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree that this is what many of us would like to see, but it would be a legal nightmare to talk, the equivalent of saying “my fault” at a car accident scene. It would blow the door wide open for lawsuits and could mean end-of-livelihood civil penalties for many. Protecting clients from that kind of exposure is a major reason lawyers exist.
 
Flying Keys said:
I don’t disagree that this is what many of us would like to see, but it would be a legal nightmare to talk, the equivalent of saying “my fault” at a car accident scene. It would blow the door wide open for lawsuits and could mean end-of-livelihood civil penalties for many. Protecting clients from that kind of exposure is a major reason lawyers exist.
Click to expand...
Maybe it’s time to push back on that system, Also, I’d suggest that end-of-livelihood for a bunch more people is already in the cards if the entire airshow circuit is blown up over this.
 
I loath making another tiresome observation regarding this tragedy, but here it is. The velocity vector of the P-63 and the observed kinetic energy dispersed in the collision indicates that had it not collided with the B-17, the P-63 would certainly have violated the hard show line and possibly traveled over the spectator area.

I don't know if the reason for that will ever be found, or if it's even worth mentioning.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Maybe it’s time to push back on that system, Also, I’d suggest that end-of-livelihood for a bunch more people is already in the cards if the entire airshow circuit is blown up over this.
Click to expand...

That’s the basis of the entire civil tort system. Pushback in the form of tort reform, while necessary in some cases, may be unwarranted in others, not to mention the abuse and neglect by bad actors that would surely follow if we were to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We all hate it when our people, causes, interests get hurt by torts, but the people on the other side hate it when their people causes, or interests are damaged by the defendants actions (or lack thereof).

I don’t have a solution other than to say it’s far from a simple black-and-white issue, and is way above my pay grade.

edit to add: and none of that is any sort of commentary on this accident, just a generalization.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I’m a strong proponent of speculative discussion on accidents to understand what happened, but I think in this case, we’ve reached the limit of our armchair investigative abilities.

On a positive note, this thread is much more civil than the ongoing discussion over on Beechtalk…
Click to expand...
Betcha it can't beat HBA. There's a guy there that says it's a "high probability" the accident was due to a Covid-vaccine-induced blood clot.

Ron Wanttaja
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top