wuzak
Captain
How much practice as a group would they do preparing for the air show?
Dallas Airshow Tragedy
- Thread starter javlin
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
ww2restorer
Airman 1st Class
- 239
- May 28, 2011
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.
Airshows are planned with a great deal of people and the authorities. Depending on the size of airshow, some take years to prepare for.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The guys I were involved with did a simple 4 ship, coordinated non aerobatic maneuvers and then a 5th aircraft would join up and do a very mellow aerobatic routine as the remaining 4 "cleared the box". These guys flew regularly, sometimes would have 2 or 3 practices before a show. All were ex military pilots with thousands of hours.
One thing I found in common with most well run airshows - the briefings were detailed and intense and there were always a post brief to discuss any issues that emerged during the show.
One thing I found in common with most well run airshows - the briefings were detailed and intense and there were always a post brief to discuss any issues that emerged during the show.
Never having been in a situation remotely like this, it's still difficult for me to wrap my head around how this could have happened. I did catch this interesting YouTube, which is an analysis of the visibility of various vintage airplanes (with minimal speculation on how the crash actually happened). After watching the video, the last moments of the accident start to make a little more sense, although it doesn't explain how these two planes got into that position in the first place.
wuzak
Captain
So a formation display like the one attempted would be planned prior to the event, and some practice runs performed?
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
This was the question in my mind, how thorough is the debriefing? I imagine in this one it was pretty intense, but in general, are they?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
yes
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I've seen very detailed debriefings
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
I'd be interested in the nuts-and-bolts of it, if you want to go into it. If not, understood.
cvairwerks
Senior Airman
For the ones I've been in, a typical brief is a full walk thru of the show from first engine start to last shutdown. It covers show order, group order, patterns, altitudes, start, taxi, takeoff and landing times. Radio frequencies, required calls, group leads and more. After that brief, then each group does a second brief, going into exact details on what is going to happen within the group. If dissimilar groups are doing anything together, even as mild as a simple parade join up, they will get together and brief that.
model299
Airman 1st Class
As far as grounding warbirds, yeah, I've seen it brought up by non-aviation talking heads on the news feeds who wonder why aircraft this old are still in the air, and pontificate that "These planes should be grounded and put into museums!!" I've heard that said several times now since the accident.
Pretty tough to tell people what they can do with their property. As long as said owners are following rules and regulations, and are properly maintaining their aircraft, I see no way the FAA can legally tell said owners they can no longer fly their planes.
The only way I could see owners forced to quit flying them is when the insurance companies refuse to cover them when airborne.
I thought I read somewhere that's the only reason NX51NA is no longer flown. I was lucky enough see (and hear!) it fly at Air Exp '81, the year before it was permanently retired to the museum. Even then, we were told by the announcer it wasn't allowed to do any rolls or aerobatics.
As for the accident under discussion, I'm sure you all can tell from my username and avatar that I was shocked and saddened by this.
RIP to those gone west, and heartfelt condolences to family and freinds.
Pretty tough to tell people what they can do with their property. As long as said owners are following rules and regulations, and are properly maintaining their aircraft, I see no way the FAA can legally tell said owners they can no longer fly their planes.
The only way I could see owners forced to quit flying them is when the insurance companies refuse to cover them when airborne.
I thought I read somewhere that's the only reason NX51NA is no longer flown. I was lucky enough see (and hear!) it fly at Air Exp '81, the year before it was permanently retired to the museum. Even then, we were told by the announcer it wasn't allowed to do any rolls or aerobatics.
As for the accident under discussion, I'm sure you all can tell from my username and avatar that I was shocked and saddened by this.
RIP to those gone west, and heartfelt condolences to family and freinds.
Last edited:
ww2restorer
Airman 1st Class
- 239
- May 28, 2011
Attached is a copy of a briefing layout from years ago, you will see they are very involved and detailed.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Back in the 80's, I owned a 1919 Metz Express truck.
It was rather rare, but I drove it often, aside from car shows and such. People would tell me that I was irresponsible for risking it on the road, it should be in a museum, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
I drove it according to the rules of the road. I didn't do anything stupid that would jeopardize it or myself. It was my property and I used extreme care to make sure that when on the road, nothing would harm it (or myself).
I eventually sold it and the owner took very good care of it, eventually retiring it.
Fast foreward 30 years later, I was literally killed in a head-on collision while driving my special ordered 2008 Scion tC coupe.
The point being, it's up to the owner of the machine to determine how and where the machine is operated. As long as they abide by the regulations imposed on the machine's operation, then it's not an issue for the public to decide.
And, disaster can strike no matter what anyone plans or practices for - case in point: my head on collision in my tC was the result of a woman passed out in her Buick suddenly coming into my lane. No amount of skill, practice or experience can counter such a situation.
So bottom line, is yes, this midair is a horrific tragedy. Calling for the grounding of warbirds as a result is a knee-jerk reaction that is unfounded.
It was rather rare, but I drove it often, aside from car shows and such. People would tell me that I was irresponsible for risking it on the road, it should be in a museum, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
I drove it according to the rules of the road. I didn't do anything stupid that would jeopardize it or myself. It was my property and I used extreme care to make sure that when on the road, nothing would harm it (or myself).
I eventually sold it and the owner took very good care of it, eventually retiring it.
Fast foreward 30 years later, I was literally killed in a head-on collision while driving my special ordered 2008 Scion tC coupe.
The point being, it's up to the owner of the machine to determine how and where the machine is operated. As long as they abide by the regulations imposed on the machine's operation, then it's not an issue for the public to decide.
And, disaster can strike no matter what anyone plans or practices for - case in point: my head on collision in my tC was the result of a woman passed out in her Buick suddenly coming into my lane. No amount of skill, practice or experience can counter such a situation.
So bottom line, is yes, this midair is a horrific tragedy. Calling for the grounding of warbirds as a result is a knee-jerk reaction that is unfounded.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Bingo!
And even then, there is nothing preventing you from flying without insurance. Now airshow operators may not want an uninsured aircraft to operate in their show, that's another story.
And that may be an airworthy decision made by the owner/ operator. There's nothing wrong when an aircraft owner decides to retire their warbird, being told to do so when the aircraft is still airworthy is a different story.
I know that no one besides the FAA can do that. These are eighty year old aircraft that are irreplaceable. I'm sure we all hate to see them destroyed.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
Here is a very coherent description of what occurred:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
We do - but at the same time they are private property.
At the same time, there are many warbirds that were built up from a small portion of a wreck and may be more of a replica than an original airframe. Those who blindly call for these warbirds to be grounded may be oblivious to that fact!
Barrett
Senior Airman
An excellent description of the Dallas airshow planning & execution. Includes P63 cockpit viz, formation basics, etc.
'Wings Over Dallas' Mid Air Collision Report
'Wings Over Dallas' Mid Air Collision Report
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
Yes and if they were not private property they would not even exist any more. he reason you see so few BT-14's any more is that they were no longer useful for military training and the engines and MLG were useful for crop dusters doing upgrades.
But it is hard to see, given how much love and money is lavished on these birds, anyone not treating them with care and caution. I do not even want to try to add up how much I have spent on my Ercoupe just over the last 2 years, but I am sure it is at least 75% of what I paid for it in 1989. Those warbirds are an order of magnitude or two higher in expense .
jimh
Senior Airman
There is so much to unpack with this accident. I'm sure ADSB readings will be scrutinized along with the briefed routes. As I understand it, there was a 500ft safety line and a 1000ft safety line. The P-63 was belly up to the 17...somewhere in the middle. I attached a photo...as far as I know it's accurate (but don't quote me), I hate speculating, but it illustrates the lateral lines for show separation. Personally, I can't understand how or why there wasn't vertical separation. Even a loose formation requires concentration on the aircraft you are following...that's the rule, 'don't hit lead'. With vertical separation you wouldn't have to worry about anyone but the aircraft you are following...unless somebody else was out of position. The video from the McDonalds clearly shows the Redtail Mustang at or near the same altitude as the B-17, but inside the flight path of the 17. The P-63 comes in to the scene about 2 seconds later pulling around to follow the P-51. The impact point of the 17 is clearly illustrated in the photo, near the 1000ft line. I hope this illustrates some kind of visual reference...for those of us trying to understand. This is not Hoyle, just my rationing of what could have happened.
Jim
Jim
