Dallas Airshow Tragedy

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The airshow groups practice regularly to keep currency and proficiency in their aircraft. Also under regulation, they are required to show this by flight tests (biannual flight reviews) and medicals.
Airshows are planned with a great deal of people and the authorities. Depending on the size of airshow, some take years to prepare for.
Just the sort of information, the knee-jerk reactionaries who were immediately calling for an air-show ban, were lacking, along with the testicular fortitude to recognize that life is danger and no amount of regulation will prevent the clean swipe of the scythe when the grim one comes for you.
 
Last edited:
Just the sort of information, the knee-jerk reactionaries who were immediately calling for an air-show ban, were lacking, along with the testicular fortitude to recognize that life is danger and no amount of regulation will prevent the clean swipe of the scythe when the grim one comes for you.
No Knee-jerk info here. This is what is required NOW for airshows. Nothing to do with testicular fortitude. Just need logical outlook, not your foolish nonscience.
 
No Knee-jerk info here. This is what is required NOW for airshows. Nothing to do with testicular fortitude. Just need logical outlook, not your foolish nonscience.
I am not sure what you are getting out, but, perhaps my post wasn't written in a manner conducive to your level of thinking because, in my mind as well as intent, it was a dig at a couple of online posters and several commenters calling for the immediate ban of air shows based upon their viewing of this particular disaster.
If you happen to support the immediate banning of any perceived dangers, then I am sorry to say we have a difference of opinion, but, if you want to question my intellect or post at any level, I will gladly debate you and prove you wrong.
70D0913C-F735-4D24-A632-390D0FBF0A78.gif
 
Last edited:
Just the sort of information, the knee-jerk reactionaries who were immediately calling for an air-show ban, were lacking, along with the testicular fortitude to recognize that life is danger and no amount of regulation will prevent the clean swipe of the scythe when the grim one comes for you.
No Knee-jerk info here. This is what is required NOW for airshows. Nothing to do with testicular fortitude. Just need logical outlook, not your foolish nonscience.
I am not sure what you are getting out, but, perhaps my post wasn't written in a manner conducive to your level of thinking because, in my mind as well as intent, it was a dig at a couple of online posters and several commenters calling for the immediate ban of air shows based upon their viewing of this particular disaster.
If you happen to support the immediate banning of any perceived dangers, then I am sorry to say we have a difference of opinion, but, if you want to question my intellect or post at any level, I will gladly debate you and prove you wrong.
View attachment 694911

Enough!

Both of you knock it off with your tit for tat BS. If you want to argue like lil school girls, take it to a PM.
 
I did a count of accidents involving vintage aircraft on a Wiki page of airshow and air race accidents; worldwide, from 2001 to 2010 there were 18 fatalities from accidents involving vintage airplanes; there were 45 fatalities from 2011 to 2022. (This looks like a huge increase, but 24 of those came from three accidents: 11 in Reno, 2011; 7 in the Collings B-17 crash, 2019; and 6 in Dallas.) Considering that there are about 100 major air shows and races a year, with many airplanes involved per show, it doesn't seem to me like this accident rate is a cause for drastic action, like immediately grounding all warbirds. It's time to let the experts do a careful investigation, and submit their recommendations. We can hope that by then, the furor will have died down and some logical preventative measures can be taken.
 
Last edited:
I did a count of accidents involving vintage aircraft on a Wiki page of airshow and air race accidents; worldwide, from 2001 to 2010 there were 18 fatalities from accidents involving vintage airplanes; there were 45 fatalities from 2011 to 2022. (This looks like a huge increase, but 24 of those came from three accidents: 11 in Reno, 2011; 7 in the Collings B-17 crash, 2019; and 6 in Dallas.) Considering that there are about 100 major air shows and races a year, with many airplanes involved per show, it doesn't seem to me like this accident rate is a cause for drastic action, like immediately grounding all warbirds. It's time to let the experts do a careful investigation, and submit their recommendations. We can hope that by then, the furor will have died down and some logical preventative measures can be taken.
Further to my previous post about the Battle of Britain memorial flight. When formed in 1957 it had one Hurricane, the last airworthy Hurricane in the RAF and one Spitfire. The Lancaster didn't become airworthy and part of the flight until 1973, although it had permission to fly in 1967. The BBMF now has 6 Spitfires, 2 Hurricanes, a Lancaster and a C-47. There are far more of these aircraft flying now than there were 40-50 years ago, which should be borne in mind when looking at accident stats.
 
I did a count of accidents involving vintage aircraft on a Wiki page of airshow and air race accidents; worldwide, from 2001 to 2010 there were 18 fatalities from accidents involving vintage airplanes; there were 45 fatalities from 2011 to 2022. (This looks like a huge increase, but 24 of those came from three accidents:11 in Reno, 2011; 7 in the Collings B-17 crash, 2019; and 6 in Dallas.) Considering that there are about 100 major air shows and races a year, with many airplanes involved per show, it doesn't seem to me like this accident rate is a cause for drastic action, like immediately grounding all warbirds. It's time to let the experts do a careful investigation, and submit their recommendations. We can hope that by then, the furor will have died down and some logical preventative measures can be taken.
Research this data more - of the 11 killed in Reno, 10 were spectators. The Collings crash involved passengers who were not part of the flight crew. Regardless of these numbers, there is no basis for a blanket grounding of warbirds.
 
Further to my previous post about the Battle of Britain memorial flight. When formed in 1957 it had one Hurricane, the last airworthy Hurricane in the RAF and one Spitfire. The Lancaster didn't become airworthy and part of the flight until 1973, although it had permission to fly in 1967. The BBMF now has 6 Spitfires, 2 Hurricanes, a Lancaster and a C-47. There are far more of these aircraft flying now than there were 40-50 years ago, which should be borne in mind when looking at accident stats.

That reminds me of how the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum lost a flyable Hurricane (and four other aircraft) to a hangar fire back in 1993. Fortunately, its Lancaster escaped unharmed.
 
I'm guessing the B-52 for the U.S.A.F. It first took flight the year I was born.
Does the U.S.A.F. have an equivalent to the BBMF?
 
I'm guessing the B-52 for the U.S.A.F. It first took flight the year I was born.
Does the U.S.A.F. have an equivalent to the BBMF?
Someone posted here ages ago that on average in US forces the plane is older than the pilot, but it was a long time ago. In 1969 I was around 9 yrs old when I first read about the future Tornado I was 14 when it first flew and 19 when it was introduced, it retired in 2018 from the RAF but others still fly it
 
How old are the oldest planes in service with the US forces and RAF?
In USAF service, by order of the oldest:
U6-A (1947)
C-130 (1954)
B-52 (1955)
U-2 (1955)
KC-135 (1956)
T-38 (1959)

The oldest in USN service, are:
DHC-3 (1953)
C-130 (1954)
F-5 (1959)
T-38 (1959)
P-3 (1962)
E-2 (1964)
C-2 (1966)

By the way, Otter NU-1B (DHC-3 listed above) is the USN's absolute oldest operating aircraft.


For the RAF, I'm not sure of what all is still in service, but I believe the HS748 is still in service (since 1960).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back