US air show crash 13/11/2022

[onetrack]

The drone theory, as I read it, is implausible. The proponent speaks of visible drone damage to the P-63 prior to impact, and a rapid altitude loss. That's all BS, inferred by odd video angles, and camera shots where depth perception is poor. The "drone" could be two feet from the P-63, or it could be 2000 feet away. And the image of the drone has little clarity, so I'd say just another wild theory by someone wanting their share of fame. Any evidence of any drone damage to the P-63 will be found by the NTSB investigation.

[Thruster88]

NTSB preliminary report.

https://www.facebook.com/100063068507532/posts/pfbid0rPkNCtBUa4vpdEAJwstXnQZbWd9u9Ws9kvGEksqAXqTUrF7CaSwZQYccMWCmE9a9l/?mibextid=Nif5oz

 

From Aviation Accidents / This day in history on Facebook.

  

- NTSB issues (the most disappointing preliminary report of the year) into the November 12, 2022, collision between a Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress (N7227C) and a Bell P-63F Kingcobra (N6763), that occurred during a fly-by at the Wings Over Dallas Airshow at the Dallas Executive Airport (RBD/KRBD), Dallas, Texas:

On November 12, 2022, about 1322 central standard time, a Boeing B-17G airplane, N7227C and a Bell P-63F airplane, N6763, collided in midair at the Dallas Executive Airport (RBD), Dallas, Texas. A post impact fire ensued. The pilot, co-pilot, and three crewmembers onboard the B-17G and the pilot of the P-63F were all fatally injured. There were no ground injuries reported. Both airplanes were operated under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 in the Wings Over Dallas Airshow.

The P-63F was number 3 of a three-ship formation of historic fighter airplanes and the B-17G was lead of a five-ship formation of historic bomber airplanes.

According to the recorded audio for the airshow radio transmissions and Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data, the air boss directed both formations to maneuver southwest of the runway before returning to the flying display area, which was the designated performance area. He directed the fighter formation to transition to a trail formation, fly in front of the bomber formation, and proceed near the 500 ft show line. The bombers were directed to fly down the 1,000 ft show line. The 500 ft show line and 1,000 ft show line were 500 ft and 1,000 ft respectively from the airshow viewing line behind which the audience viewed the airshow.

There were no altitude deconflictions briefed before the flight or while the airplanes were in the air. When the fighter formation approached the flying display area, the P-63F was in a left bank and it collided with the left side of the B-17G, just aft of the wing section.

Both airplanes broke up in flight and impacted terrain in a grassy area on airport property south of the approach end of runway 31. A fire ignited in the wing center section of the B-17G as it descended to the ground. The B-17G exploded upon ground impact

The debris field was generally aligned on a magnetic heading of 320°. Documentation of the accident site found all major flight control components for both airplanes located in the debris field.

Both airplanes were equipped with ADS-B. An Avidyne IFD540 unit from the B-17G and a Garmin GPSMAP 496 unit from the P-63F were recovered and submitted to the National Transportation Safety Board Vehicle Recorders Laboratory.  The IFD-540 contained position information relevant to the accident; however, the GPSMAP 496 did not record any information for the accident flight.

The wreckage of both airplanes was retained for further examination.

Edited November 30, 2022 by Thruster88

[onetrack]

Quote

Both airplanes were equipped with ADS-B

??? And neither one was switched on??

[Garfly]

28 minutes ago, onetrack said:

??? And neither one was switched on??

I guess that even if they'd had time to glance at their traffic displays they'd have been expecting to have a bunch of other aircraft buzzing around very close, anyway. (No time for a "but not that close!" thought to be thunk, let alone acted on).

We do know that both ADSB-OUT devices were on since we've seen their flight paths displayed and discussed on several of the video reports. 

 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by Garfly

[Blueadventures]

18 minutes ago, Garfly said:

I guess that even if they'd had time to glance at their traffic displays they'd have been expecting to have a bunch of other aircraft buzzing around very close, anyway. (No time for a "but not that close!" thought to be thunk, let alone acted on).

We do know that both ADSB-OUT devices were on since we've seen their flight paths displayed and discussed on several of the video reports. 

 

 

 

Being that close you need to consider the precision of accuracy, refresh times and pilot scanning timings.

[Student Pilot]

With formation flying most time is spent with your eyes outside, being so close a display of traffic on a screen is not that helpful.

[Garfly]

7 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

Being that close you need to consider the precision of accuracy, refresh times and pilot scanning timings.

Sure, being that close, formation flying, in fact, even pro-tech guys (like m'self ;- ) would say your eyes would HAVE to be outside. But even if you had aural warnings available you'd have to turn them off during an airshow, they'd be going beserk.

[bull]

On 30/11/2022 at 8:53 AM, Garfly said:

Well, like always, the pro-theory mob reckon the skeptics are crazy and vice-versa. ;- )

Who you calling crazy ?It was on facebook so it must be true!!!

Edited December 1, 2022 by bull

[onetrack]

Well, there were 5 pilots on the B-17. What were the 3 non-flying pilots doing, if not assisting in keeping a lookout?

And the pilot of the P-63 had the B-17 in his clear sight for many seconds during his banked turn, just prior to the collision. What was he looking at, instead of the B-17?

 

I still feel that medical issues must be behind this disaster - not to mention deficient show procedures as well.

 

 

 

[kgwilson]

The US made ADSB Out compulsory but only for aircraft flying in Class A, B, C  up to 10,000 feet & E airspace above 10,000 feet excluding airspace below 2,500 feet and within 30NM of most airports so the aircraft in this incident had to have it installed by law, which they did. ADSB In is not mandated for any airspace. In this situation even if you had ADSB In you would not have time to look at the screen and there would be potential conflict warnings going off all the time due to the number of aircraft in a very small area.

 

The long nose of the P36 meant that the pilot could not see the B17 at all while performing his left hand turn even though the photo with both aircraft circled looks as though he should be looking directly at it.

[facthunter]

Information overload or "Clutter"  means what the words say. There's been a Case made for the King cobra to have not been able to sight the larger plane till too late anyhow.  The pressure is  most to keep away from "over" the crowd. Infringe that one and you are "scrubbed" from the scene. Add a Go faster  instruction and there you are. Faster makes the arc of the track wider necessitating lots more bank angle and higher rate of closure to the impact with the front aircraft.  Nev

[onetrack]

Kevin & Nev, do you really think that's truly the case? Forward vision in the P-63 cockpit seems pretty good to me, and wouldn't good pilot forward vision have been high on the design agenda during WW2?

 

The pilot of the P-63 has a prop driveshaft under his seat, that feature alone must make for a higher seating position.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by onetrack

[facthunter]

It has doors like those of a car and thick pillars. The nose is not much better than any other fighter for vision. You do look over the wing leading edges better but in a steep turn perhaps not so likely to have the head far from the centre.  Nev

[Garfly]

I believe his formation buddies were over to his left.

If he was being asked to formate on them he had a right to expect the organisers to look after the airspace to allow that. 

You can't fly formation and dodge traffic at the same time, or even look for any.

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by Garfly

[Garfly]

An update from Juan: 

 

 

 

[onetrack]

Once again, Juan gives a good dissection of the problems relating to the cause of the disaster.

 

I don't understand how someone could plan an airshow where the slower bomber formation does the outside loop and the faster fighter formation does the inside loop? That alone is a recipe for disaster, it goes against the basic physics of conflict positions - particularly where overtaking is involved.

 

The overtaking issue is one of the primary issues here. Why was it even allowed? You commence a manoeuvre to overtake another much slower aircraft, and then you just "assume" the much slower aircraft is way behind you??

Yeah, that'll work every time, particularly when there's no altitude deconfliction and the chances of collision are at a massive level.

What was that old saying about "assume"? "It makes An Ass out of U and Me"?

 

Another thing I fail to understand is this critical "500 foot", "1000 foot" and "2000 foot lanes". Juan produces a map of Google Earth and shows markers on the terrain for the precise positioning of the lanes - but there's no ground markers for these lanes for the aircraft putting on the show.

 

How did they reference these lanes so precisely without ground markers? The pilots have some ground references in the form of the runway and taxiway and the crowd - but what were the pilots looking at, to keep them to these very precise boundaries?

The whole airshow operation is going to go down in history as the worst possible example of how not to run an airshow.

 

[Thruster88]

On 13/11/2022 at 7:40 PM, Thruster88 said:

I would not be blaming either pilot at this stage, we don't know what if any plan was in place for the fly by. There were at least three single engine aircraft in a loose trail formation in addition to the b17.

I made this comment based on what I saw in the initial video. Sadly not far from the mark. 

 

I like Juan Browne and watch all his vids, his summery of what happened is a polite version of what Dan Gryder said recently. 

 

The important thing is to learn from all accidents. This morning flying the RV (total rocket ship) I felt vulnerable making the turns in the circuit.  

[Captain]

5 hours ago, onetrack said:

The overtaking issue is one of the primary issues here. Why was it even allowed? You commence a manoeuvre to overtake another much slower aircraft, and then you just "assume" the much slower aircraft is way behind you??

Yeah, that'll work every time, particularly when there's no altitude deconfliction and the chances of collision are at a massive level.

What was that old saying about "assume"? "It makes An Ass out of U and Me"?

 

Another thing I fail to understand is this critical "500 foot", "1000 foot" and "2000 foot lanes". Juan produces a map of Google Earth and shows markers on the terrain for the precise positioning of the lanes - but there's no ground markers for these lanes for the aircraft putting on the show.

 

How did they reference these lanes so precisely without ground markers? The pilots have some ground references in the form of the runway and taxiway and the crowd - but what were the pilots looking at, to keep them to these very precise boundaries?

The whole airshow operation is going to go down in history as the worst possible example of how not to run an airshow.

Agree Onetrack.

 

I was speechless at the facts outlined by Juan and the crossover called for during the show by the "AirBoss".

 

Throughout the briefing and then during the display, all of these very experienced pilots just went along with it.

 

It is staggering that everyone stayed schtumm, particularly given the relative inexperience of the "AirBoss".

Edited December 2, 2022 by Captain

[danny_galaga]

On 01/12/2022 at 2:57 PM, onetrack said:

Kevin & Nev, do you really think that's truly the case? Forward vision in the P-63 cockpit seems pretty good to me, and wouldn't good pilot forward vision have been high on the design agenda during WW2?

 

The pilot of the P-63 has a prop driveshaft under his seat, that feature alone must make for a higher seating position.

 

 

 

 

I think very roughly speaking, during a steep turn, the bomber would have been roughly at the top of the joystick from the p63 pilots point of view. 

[kgwilson]

This may be your perspective but most of the experts have said he could not see the B17 during that turn. While it looks as though he should be able to see it from the video clip, there is a fair amount of elevator required to keep the aircraft from losing altitude during the turn so while it appears to be losing altitude it is not and the nose is high (as is the RH wing), the window frames are thick so these are all factors obscuring the B17 from view from the pilots seat. At the time of impact the P36 had 226 knots of ground speed.

Edited December 3, 2022 by kgwilson

[Old Koreelah]

That bluddy high instrument panel would undo any visibility advantage of the relatively short, sloping nose.

[Captain]

I see that Dan has hooked into the ''AirBoss' again, which seems to be appropriate given all of the reporting that I have seen on this accident .............. but equally staggering, as we have discussed earlier, is the decision of the high hours fighter pilot to accept the directive to cross-over without checking the airspace needed to do that (he possibly assumed that the AirBoss had checked that all was safe before giving the cross-over directive), but even moreso is the culture of the organisation as reported by Dan, that if you question of criticise the organisation in any way you can't fly & are out. Probably explains why nobody spoke against the plan at the briefing, but not the fact that the FAA rep(s)stayed quiet in the briefing too.

 

What a mess it was.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Captain

[facthunter]

Things are happening quick at 230 knots in a circuit area.    Nev

[IBob]

9 minutes ago, Captain said:

I see that Dan has hooked into the ''AirBoss' again, which seems to be appropriate given all of the reporting that I have seen on this accident .............. but equally staggering, as we have discussed earlier, is the decision of the high hours fighter pilot to accept the directive to cross-over without checking the airspace needed to do that (he possibly assumed that the AirBoss had checked that all was safe before giving the cross-over directive), but even moreso is the culture of the organisation as reported by Dan, that if you question of criticise the organisation in any way you can't fly & are out. Probably explains why nobody spoke against the plan at the briefing, but not the fact that the FAA rep(s)stayed quiet in the briefing too.

 

What a mess it was.

The story does just seems to get worse.

As for nobody speaking out: I have wondered if it might in part be a reluctance to be the first to speak out. I was thinking of the famous B52 crash, where the pilot had been variously bending and breaking the rules for years, but nobody (apart from one man who died with him) was prepared to do anything about it. Ridiculous as it seems, maybe it's a sort of male gungho chicken thing, where speaking up is chickening out.......(

 

[Garfly]