US air show crash 13/11/2022

[Student Pilot]

Distinct difference the way it's commented on between an accident in Oz and overseas. An accident in Oz there's outrage if anybody makes a comment of why, how. Always indignant criticism about waiting till all the facts have been looked at and the accident investigated. Anybody who makes any comment is called an armchair expert and derided. 
Hands up all those with airshow, warbird, formation and American circuit procedure experience? 

[Garfly]

Yeah, I'd have thought that in a fast jet formation your eyes need to be on your lead.  

Maybe the mistake was having two acts on stage at the same time.

I'd have thought that the fighter guy had a right to expect clear air below during the show.

[Old Koreelah]

The P-63 and its parent P-39 should have heaps better forward visibility than fighters with engine in the nose.

The cockpit video shows how limited the view is with the high panel. 

Lessons for all of us to be supervigilant before going into a turn.

[onetrack]

Kathryns report below, about a tragic mid-air on final, simply reinforces the FAA's advisories. The 79 yr old pilot in this tragic accident was apparently making radio calls on an incorrect local frequency - but he still failed in his carrying out of the basic "see-and-avoid" principles (my italics).

 

The See-and-Avoid Concept

 

The FAA issued AC 90-48D, "Pilots' Role in Collision Avoidance," in April, 2016 to alert all pilots "…to the potential hazards of midair collisions and near midair collisions (NMAC), and to emphasize those basic problem areas related to the human causal factors where improvements in pilot education, operating practices, procedures, and improved scanning techniques are needed to reduce midair conflicts."

AC 90-48D stated that each person operating an aircraft, regardless of whether the operation was conducted under IFR or VFR, shall maintain a vigilant lookout for other aircraft at all times. Regarding visual scanning, the AC specifically stated that "Pilots should remain constantly alert to all traffic movement within their field of vision, as well as periodically scanning the entire visual field outside of their aircraft to ensure detection of conflicting traffic.". AC 90-48D also described several specific methods that pilots could use to visually acquire other traffic. 

 

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2016/09/beechcraft-f33a-bonanza-n6027k-and.html

[spenaroo]

don't want to be age'ist....
but I think its time to look at the age of these pilots.

a lot of these pilots are in their 70's flying high performance aircraft in an increased danger environment.

maybe its time to say display flights are to be done by pilots that meet a commercial qualifications (which immediately excludes anyone over 65)
especially with passenger flights.

[Bennyboy320]

The pilot of the P63 is under 65 & a current United Airlines captain.

[facthunter]

Do you really think they will trust these valuable planes to old blokes who are past it?. I've seen vids of a young bloke flying one of those Fortresses who definitely would not check out on the airline equivalent in their day.  The cost of recency may be a factor but I think management of the  event is the Issue here... Surely someone has radio contact and exercises some control of events? Nev

[spenaroo]

45 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Do you really think they will trust these valuable planes to old blokes who are past it?. I've seen vids of a young bloke flying one of those Fortresses who definitely would not check out on the airline equivalent in their day.  The cost of recency may be a factor but I think management of the  event is the Issue here... Surely someone has radio contact and exercises some control of events? Nev

Yep, Nine-O-Nine and the Collings foundation

my understanding is it was a case of the old boys club self certifying each other. resulting with the FAA pulling the authority to carry passengers.
along with fining the them for charging for flight training in the P51 they operated. - which breached its registration conditions

I am sure the majority are doing the right thing. and know a lot of the privately owned aircraft use recently retired fighter pilots etc..
But with some of these organizations there is definitely power games. no one wants to tell large majority donors they cant do it anymore, or bump off the seniority built in the organization.
we have all been in volunteer organizations that fall victim to power games - this gives an easy out. 

Imagine the fallout from demoting the chief pilot, to co-pilot status.

 

sure there's average pilots everywhere - but you have to admit there is no shortage of highly skilled pilots that can take over either

we would all like to think they were flown by Yeager or Hoover, but even they stopped flying in old age. admittedly they held out a bit longer.

Edited November 14, 2022 by spenaroo

[facthunter]

Not carrying paying passengers is the result of risk  evaluation  and it's a no-brainer where you have aircraft that were not that safe even when they were new. 80 years later you are flat out getting Parts and the people who know much about this stuff at all. Airshow prangs are far too common and always have been. Extensive approvals from the authority are required for each one individually..  Nev

[spenaroo]

Cant edit my post.

but thought this quote was pretty fitting with my thoughts on the pressure of money influencing choices on who flies

Gordon Cooper: You know what makes this bird go up? FUNDING makes this bird go up.

[Garfly]

3 hours ago, onetrack said:

The See-and-Avoid Concept

The FAA issued AC 90-48D, "Pilots' Role in Collision Avoidance," in April, 2016 to alert all pilots "… Regarding visual scanning, the Advisory Circular specifically stated that "Pilots should remain constantly alert to all traffic movement within their field of vision, as well as periodically scanning the entire visual field outside of their aircraft to ensure detection of conflicting traffic.". 

 

For what it's worth, that 2016 FAA Advisory Circular has recently been replaced by  AC 90-48E. If you wade through the whole belaboured document, you're likely to find its main message quite contradictory.  It insists both that a pilot's visual scan remains the main game and that a pilot's visual scan is totally inadequate to the job of avoiding midairs.  For example:

  7.1 ... The NTSB released Safety Alert SA-058 on midair collision prevention technology, which states, in part, “The ‘see-and-avoid’ concept has long been the foundation of midair collision prevention. However, the inherent limitations of this concept, including human limitations, environmental conditions, aircraft blind spots, and operational distractions, leave even the most diligent pilot vulnerable to the threat of a midair collision with an unseen aircraft.” 

Then it  goes on to push the need for ADSB ... before returning to its original theme.   

 

(I get the feeling that this is because regulators, in general, abhor the idea letting - or even appearing to let - pilots off the hook - any hook, especially in advance.)

 

In any case, even CASA's equivalent circular, AC 91-14 v.1,

takes a bit of a swipe at some of the FAA's visual scanning recommendations:

 

7.1.2 The current version of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) AC 90-48 details a scanning technique that involves eye movements in sectors of 10 degrees of one-second duration per sector. However, scanning a 180-degree horizontal and 30-degree vertical sector would take a minimum of 54 seconds. US military research found that it takes a pilot 12.5 seconds to avoid a collision after target detection. Therefore, it can be deduced that considerable time gaps exist where traffic may not be detected during a normal scan period. Such a structured and disciplined scan technique may also be difficult to achieve. 

 

LOL

 

 

FAA AC 90-48E.pdf advisory-circular-91-14-pilots-responsibility-collision-avoidance.pdf

Edited November 14, 2022 by Garfly

[facthunter]

It's quite amazing that any of them are flying and Kudos to all involved. Not just MONEY, KNOWLEDGE. It's totally different technology with lots of idiosyncrasies and foibles. . A jet engine is about 5% of the effort to manage that a supercharged big Radial is. . Nev 

[spenaroo]

not to mention they are well passed their intended lifespan. they were only meant to last for a few hundred hours.
its such a great achievement to see them still airworthy

Edited November 14, 2022 by spenaroo

[facthunter]

I don't know that there were built with a deliberately short life. Bombers have a small "G"  fail figure but it's not much worse that a commercial Jet

   I flew a C-54 with over 70 000 airframe hours and when it was given a full airframe inspection no cracks were detected in the main structure. Pressure cycles put many out of service. Vickers Viscounts had a few structural failures and engine fires (Magnesium  cabin Blowers).   Nev

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

It's quite amazing that any of them are flying and Kudos to all involved. Not just MONEY, KNOWLEDGE. It's totally different technology with lots of idiosyncrasies and foibles. . A jet engine is about 5% of the effort to manage that a supercharged big Radial is. . Nev 

i like the ice pilots show. buffalo airways with the dc3s and electras, like a flying museum.

[Jabiru7252]

I went to Oshkosh back in 1990. Great event. Talking to some of the folks who owned WW2 aircraft, they said that many of the planes they own are old in years but only young in terms of flying hours. Apparently motor bikes and jeeps were the same, brand new yet years old and cheap as chips in the USA. Imagine a 1942 WLA Harley Davidson motor bike still in the crate going for a song. How many hours had that B17 done before it was smashed into at the airshow? What a terrible thing.

[PapaFox]

According to here, when the USN finished with it in 1956, it had 3357hrs already before becoming a civilian photo platform for another 6 years

[Bosi72]

16 hours ago, spenaroo said:

don't want to be age'ist....
but I think its time to look at the age of these pilots.

a lot of these pilots are in their 70's flying high performance aircraft in an increased danger environment.

maybe its time to say display flights are to be done by pilots that meet a commercial qualifications (which immediately excludes anyone over 65)
especially with passenger flights.

 

I frequently go hunting in Victorian high country with a father of a friend who is 70yo. Climbing mountains, crossing rivers, gulleys, I only wish I am that fit and vital when I'm in 70s... 

 

On the other side when I'm in Tullamarine watching some chubby/fatty airline captains walking on the terminal, I wonder how they got class 1 medical..

 

Do not judge people by age and appearance..

[derekliston]

At 75yrs old I am still flying, thanks to CASA I have to have an annual medical which I pass without problem including a stress echo. Age is only a number, physical health can vary dramatically for any particular number. I am neither experienced enough nor lucky enough to fly these historic machines but have in the past flown in Dragon Rapide, Harvard and Ford Trimotor. I believe that all of us who are involved in any way with old aircraft know and accept the risks involved whilst doing what we can to mitigate those risks. Unfortunately there will always be tragedies such as this one from time to time.

[spenaroo]

100% agree age is a number, and in an ideal world everything is on a case by case basis.
but looking at some of the history of the accidents prior to this one baffles me.
so many exemptions with experimental or limited registration.

(my understanding is a lot of this is to do with volunteers maintaining the aircraft, and not meeting current standards)

taking passengers for "donations" - I get it as being a necessary funding activity, but its pretty hard to argue this isn't a commercial operation

The self inspection blows my mind. (or in the case of nine-o-nine, the fact the person assigned to oversee safety compliance had passed away two years earlier)
 

I get it, everyone wants to see them keep flying, I want to see them keep flying.

and there is an enormous pressure felt by these organizations to do so - probably too much

Its a hard conversation to have, but maybe its time to have a look and bring the standards back in line with the rest of aviation.
make sure that we aren't going to destroy the thing we love.
It will cause some of these birds are grounded due to costs - which is sad

but I think we have been really lucky not to have collateral damage.
and I think if/when it happens there will be plenty of public outcry and pressure that could ground far more - the TBM beach pilot was meters away from being seen as a murderer instead of the hero - (another sad case of continuously poor decisions made, I'd argue due to pressure to show the aircraft)
can you imagine the reaction if the B17 wasn't just crew, but had been on its normal passenger for donation flights it was offering.

[facthunter]

It's Civilian use that racks up the hours and most war-time pilots at the end of the war had less than 600 hours in their log books. They were thrown to the wolves with minimum training time  Only the younger ones were MAD enough to be fighter pilots A goodly number of them came from occupations like Bank Clerks except in some places where they were "Farm Boys' (NZ) IF you had mechanical experience you were commandeered for Maintenance and repair. Nev

[danny_galaga]

As always, speculation it's just that. However, since these things are supposed to be heavily choreographed, I can't help but wonder if there was something going on with the P63? An medium level problem (clearly not engine out, they looked to be at full tilt) but a combination of things that resulted in a momentary loss of situational awareness? Or a problem with a control surface that given clear air, might have been able to land? 

[Garfly]

 

Having had a few days to  gather facts and make a video, Juan Browne now offers this preliminary report:

 

 

[Blueadventures]

36 minutes ago, danny_galaga said:

As always, speculation it's just that. However, since these things are supposed to be heavily choreographed, I can't help but wonder if there was something going on with the P63? An medium level problem (clearly not engine out, they looked to be at full tilt) but a combination of things that resulted in a momentary loss of situational awareness? Or a problem with a control surface that given clear air, might have been able to land? 

Around that time pilot would have been iding the on ground features for the track run.

[facthunter]

Whoever devised the Operational logic didn't carry out a proper risk assessment. Same height and LOW and varying speeds and turn radius.  Only a matter of time.Nev