Dallas airshow accident P63/B17 with 6 fatal

Checkswrecks

Ungenear to broked stuff
Staff member
Global Moderator
2011 Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
11,489
Location
Damascus, MD
Knowing my background as a now somewhat retired accident investigator, I've gotten the usual "what happened" questions & recognize some friends and colleague investigators in the on-scene photos. Instead of one by one answers, here are a few observations rom what are already a BUNCH of videos and radio recordings like below:

Here we go round and round again with airshow accidents involving warbirds in a needless loss of life we repeat every year. In summary, the rallying cry of the warbird community will be that these are privately owned airplanes on airshow waivers so there's already enough restrictions. However, after the NTSB has essentially been blown off following Illinois, Oshkosh, Hartford, and so many other show accidents, the visibility of this one may lead to serious change.

Mechanical failure?
The NTSB will look into it but for the exact timing it would be very very unlikely. The on-scene investigation will look into the airplane systems for things like bearing binding, while the lab will do an aero exam, taking the frame by frame movements and backing those into an aerodynamic program which extrapolates back to pilot control inputs, versus what the airplane actually was doing.

Pilot incapacitation or G loss of consciousness (GLOC)?
The investigation will be going through the audio in fine detail to examine for potential GLOC and yes, it's possible. However, he had been talking to ground and just before that moment they had told him to take the lead. The above mentioned aero exam will also imply whether the pilot was in control. Just as an observation, a pilot pulling G and browning out tends to relax on the stick, like happened this year at Reno. That's not apparent in the Dallas videos online.

Management?
With respect to paying/commercial operations at these general aviation events, the NTSB came to some conclusions and safety recommendations following the 2019 Hartford B-17 "9-0-9" Collings Foundation crash. While technically it pointed to maintenance and the pilot proficiency, the Board found the entire scheme of things was too loose and unsafe to be carrying people for money. These warbirds were dangerous when built to perform specific military missions and were NEVER meant to be safe enough to continue on for another 70 years with their 1940s versions of military safety standards which didn't even meet the commercial standards back then.
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/100356/pdf

The NTSB then went farther after a "doors off" helicopter accident resulted in drowning photographers in New York and they realized there'd been 8 recent fatal accidents killing 45 people in Part 91 commercial ops:
https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/ne...g-slams-loopholes-in-part-91-revenue-flights/

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/aar2103.pdf
(See the recommendations starting on page viii)

Bottom line is that the NTSB found that although the FAA said they were requiring a level of standard equivalent to a safety management system (SMS), the FAA was not actually executing or following through. Yes, the Commemorative Air Force CEO posted photos to show how before the Dallas accident there were pre-flight briefings, but look closer at how large and one-sided they were. As any aviation professional can tell you, SMS requires continuous participation by all involved, not lectures. This goes a lot farther than the director of airshow ops at a single show. My guess is that after this accident no FAA inspector in his right mind will be willing to sign airshow waivers without pretty stringent standards providing solid path separation, altitude separation, less close formations, and above all - proof that an actual SMS program is being used.

We'll need to wait and see what else the NTSB comes out with. In the meantime there will be ALL sorts of armchair experts (example: Blancolirio) who are NOT part of the investigation so be careful of the speculative crap about to flood us.

Bob / CW
 

thughes317

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,055
Location
The Bluegrass, KY
Saw this commentary, found it interesting but I don't know jackshit about any of this:

Arthur Alan Wolk is a Philadelphia aviation attorney who flew in air shows for 12 years. After watching the air show video and hearing the maneuvers described as “bombers on parade,” Wolk told The Associated Press Sunday that the P-63 pilot violated the basic rule of formation flying.

“He went belly up to the leader,” Wolk said. “That prevents him from gauging distance and position. The risk of collision is very high when you cannot see who you are supposed to be in formation with and that kind of join up is not permitted.”

He added, “I am not blaming anyone and to the greatest extent possible air shows, the pilots and the aircraft that fly in them are safe. Air shows are one of the largest spectator events in America and it is rare that a tragedy like this occurs.”

Wolk said it takes extensive training and discipline to fly in an air show setting. The air show qualifications of the P-63 pilot are not known.
 

Fennellg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2015
Messages
607
Location
North Carolina
Saw a video of the crash. It appeared to me the Air Cobra miss judged how close he was and ran into the rear of the B17. From what I saw the B17 could not have done anything to avoid the crash. It looked like he was trying to put on a show and screwed up big time.

The air cobra seemed purposeful and being flown skillfully until the crash.
 
Last edited:

Dirt_Dad

Well-Known Member
Founding Member
2011 Site Supporter
2013 Site Supporter
2014 Site Supporter
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
5,955
Location
Northern Virginia, USA
Just a sad, tragic, awful event.

I've told CW countless times how much I appreciate his former profession. Separating the human toll from the need to learn from, understand, and recommend corrective actions is a lot to ask of anyone.

Thanks for the informative post.
 

Jlq1969

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2018
Messages
1,749
Location
Argentina
I believe that at the time of the collision, neither of the two pilots could see that they had a plane above and behind….or below. Maybe a coincidence or the plane that crashed out of formation.
D790CA08-C485-415A-8D3E-AD7C22D266EA.jpeg
 

Checkswrecks

Ungenear to broked stuff
Staff member
Global Moderator
2011 Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
11,489
Location
Damascus, MD
NTSB released this scene video, largely following the Board Member and Investigator In Charge (IIC) as they survey the area. I never worked with this Board Member but Jason Aguilera (IIC) is a sharp guy.

Board Member briefing with Jason in the white shirt. The second last question is essentially the typical "You haven't done the investigation yet but who was at fault?"
 

cyclemike4

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
815
Location
ky
This was a tragic event. I have to hand it to the people who fly those things and are showing what our service men had to endure or sacrifice life for to keep this country great. I certainly hope something good can come from the study of the crash at least. Heart felt condolences to the families of the ones lost.
 

StefanOnHisS10

Converting fuel into heat, noise and a bit motion
Staff member
Global Moderator
Joined
Apr 8, 2020
Messages
2,158
Location
The Netherlands, Friesland.
Don’t know much about planes but liked the B17 a lot because of its appearance and history. Sad that we have lost one and the lives of the crew.
 

RCinNC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2014
Messages
2,816
Location
North Carolina
Checkswrecks brought up a point that, despite the countless WWII documentaries I've watched over the years, I hadn't considered: that these aircraft were designed outside of the safety parameters in place even in the late 1930's and 1940's. That's certainly reasonable in light of the purpose for which they were designed, but it does raise some valid questions about these aircraft being operated over populated areas and being used to transport passengers. These aircraft seem to exist at least partially outside the regulations for general aviation, something I hadn't realized before Checkwreck's post.

Regardless of the ultimate cause of this particular crash, one thing is true for all of these warbird crashes; all of these airframes are at least 75 years old. Much like the Liberty Ships in WWII, they were never designed with this sort of longevity in mind. If you look into Liberty Ship failures since WWII, you'll see a lot of structural failures from both age and inadequate design. They were designed fast, built fast, and not expected to last beyond the war. It's not a stretch to believe that this design philosophy was used for aircraft produced during that same era.

I imagine that an aircraft undergoes an awful lot of stress during even normal flight operations. It's probably why the FAA requires so many inspections, engine overhauls, etc. Though there may be the odd DC-3 still flying people around somewhere in the world, you don't see lot of commercial aviation companies trying to maintain 75 year old airframes for commercial use. Both the expense and the risk would be too high for both passengers and people on the ground.

I'm glad these aircraft still exist. There's nothing like the feeling of standing beside a war era P-47 Thunderbolt or a Grumman Hellcat, knowing the part they played in history.
 

tntmo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
649
Location
San Diego, CA
I worked in USN aviation for 26 years, it seems like all of our aircraft were extended well beyond their service life expectations. It seems pretty common to have long aircraft lifespans. I don't think the structural integrity is a problem. The B52 was designed and built in the 50's-60's and is expected to be in service for at least two more decades which will be almost 100 years military service.

Modern avionics/electronics are what is probably the biggest drawback on those old military aircraft, but a lot of that can be temporarily retrofitted for safety if they wanted to do it.

In my unprofessional opinion, this incident was caused by poor judgement from a pilot and no level of modern equipment would have prevented it. My heart goes out to those who lost friends and family members. Sad to see the lost historical aircraft as well.
 

RCinNC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2014
Messages
2,816
Location
North Carolina
I'm guessing that the B-52's, as currently active duty aircraft, are required to meet a lot more stringent standards than a WWII aircraft in privately owned hands. They are in daily use, with an actual mission, and I bet any ground crew member who served in maintenance in a B-52 wing can tell you how much maintenance is required to keep them airworthy and operationally safe.
 

tntmo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
649
Location
San Diego, CA
I'm guessing that the B-52's, as currently active duty aircraft, are required to meet a lot more stringent standards than a WWII aircraft in privately owned hands. They are in daily use, with an actual mission, and I bet any ground crew member who served in maintenance in a B-52 wing can tell you how much maintenance is required to keep them airworthy and operationally safe.
True, we had to do more inspections on aircraft after they went beyond their initial service life. Sometimes the intervals were reduced to half.
That being said, I would hope that any WWII/historical aircraft being flown are given regular inspections as well but I have no idea if that happens.
 

RCinNC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2014
Messages
2,816
Location
North Carolina
I don't know either....general aviation rules and regs are definitely outside my wheelhouse. Checkswrecks definitely knows what he's talking about, though, and my impression from his initial post is that this particular segment of aviation seems to exist outside the normal requirements for general aviation.
 

Checkswrecks

Ungenear to broked stuff
Staff member
Global Moderator
2011 Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
11,489
Location
Damascus, MD
The subjects in the posts from tntmo and RCinNC include:
passenger safety/crashworthiness
public safety,
airworthiness,
service life, largely meaning fatigue life till the structure just wears out and breaks.

In passenger safety, I was largely echoing the NTSB report about how these airplanes were never meant to even have the safety features of commercial airplanes when they were introduced, 75+ years ago. That's more than three generations and the biggest airplane safety features were actually introduced in the mid 1980s, so at least 30 years ago. I've seen these old planes with the seatbelt anchors torn out of the sheetmetal, people banging around into sharp edges, and welded steel tube structures so stiff they transmit the impact G forces straight to the bodies of the occupants. Plus, the old planes are still running open fuel lines and bladders with high octane aviation gas through occupied areas and those old lines were not designed to stop or prevent leakage when damaged. Yet, by working within loopholes of the regs, people are sold tickets to experience what it's like to fly in the antiques and they just have no idea what they may be getting into, such as the Collings Nine-O-Nine B-17 which crashed in Hartford due partly to bad engine maintenance.

There's not a lot of risk to the public under the flight paths because the flight paths are kept over airport properties or planned to stay away from more densely populated areas. There have been collisions at airshows involving debris being thrown at high speed without control and there've been some nasty accidents involving spectators. Otherwise, airshows have generally been pretty safe for the public at large.

As far as airworthiness, the WW2 airplanes are generally doing really well because they are so attended to and are too expensive to really fly many hours a year. The Collings Non O Nine B-17 crash was again the poster child of one pushed too far on maintenance because they were unable to sell enough tickets to keep the airplane safe. The Commemorative Air Force which operated both of the Dallas accident airplanes has some pretty deep pockets due to so many of those airplanes having some rich owners &/or sponsors.

These old planes are massively beyond any thoughts about service life but again the limited number of hours they fly and amount they are inspected is keeping them going. This is quite a bit different than military planes pressed into continuing civil service such as water bombers, which HAVE had a history of wings breaking. A totally different subject would be military planes with service life extension programs (SLEPs) because there's a lot of science and maintenance keeping them in the air and of course now that they are being re-engined the B52 is the extreme example.


The Airplane Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) recently put out the following video which is pretty good in that it doesn't jump to conclusions about cause. For those interested, it lays out basic facts, how airshows are conducted, and what the investigation will be looking for.
 

tntmo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
649
Location
San Diego, CA
Great information, thanks. Even though aviation was my entire life for a long time, I am not tired of learning more and I still enjoy airshows. I was just at the Edwards AFB air show, there wasn't a lot of multi aircraft stuff going on at that show besides the Thunderbirds. Huge crowds, the public definitely enjoys these kind of events so safety has to be the number one priority.
 

fac191

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2016
Messages
2,827
Location
London
We still have the Sally B flying over here. Seen it lots of times. Lovely. The last Vulcan was retired a few years ago. Seen that flying a few times awell. The sound was awesome. Saw the last 2 Lancasters flying together 3 times. They made a great noise. Nothing like the old planes. Enjoy them while you can.
 

bimota

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2017
Messages
6,522
Location
bridgend, Wales, UK
i did a taxi ride for my 50th in the just jane lancaster, i was sat in the bomb aimers seat in front lower glass section, shit when they fired those
4 merlins up wow what a noise,
 

Attachments

Top