P63 King Cobra and B17 Mid Air Collision at Dallas Air show

[Mike Griffin]

This is just horrible and tragic.  Situational Awareness

https://twitter.com/i/status/1591522892533174272

Mike

[GallopingGhostler]

Wow, Mike, that is truly tragic. The P-63 struck the forward topside of the B-17 fuselage, causing the B-17 wing to separate from the fuselage, looks like they were only may be 400 feet AGL. Last such accident I saw a video of was two Bristol Beaufighters in training during WW2, crashing into each other in a similar manner at about the same altitude resulting in the loss of both aircrews.

The loss of 2 historic aircraft is tragic, but the loss of the aircrew of both is truly tragic. The one filming from her cellphone says, "¡Dios mío!" (Oh my God!)

[Dan McEntee]

   It was during the CAF airshow. I have seen other videos from a different angle, further away, show other fighters going through one behind the other in a trailing flight bath, with a pretty good spacing between. The B-17 was lower, probably on a simulated bomb run or something, and the P-63 was maybe 1/2 mile to the left flying in the opposite direction. He may have been a bit lower, and turned left towards the B-17 flight path. like he was supposed to be in a skating rink type pattern just flying consecutive ovals. By the time he got close to 180 degrees in the turn, He was on an intercept path. I'm thinking he couldn't see the bomber until after he hit it. It was in a left bank, bomber was in a blind spot. Some one deviated from their flight path or altitude, most likely the P-63 pilot. The bomber was flying straight and level it appeared to me. Bomber flight deck probably never saw the P-63. Pure pilot error, I think. You just have to pray for the crew families.
   Type at you later,
    Dan McEntee

[wwwarbird]

 A very tragic accident, no one had a chance. Studying all the videos it's doubtful the B-17 crew even saw it coming. This one is on the Air Boss and the P-63 driver. Incredibly sad.

[qaz049]

 Last such accident I saw a video of was two Bristol Beaufighters in training during WW2, crashing into each other in a similar manner at about the same altitude resulting in the loss of both aircrews.

They were two RAAF Bristol Beauforts, collided 15 Miles West of Bundaberg Queensland Australia, 21 APRIL 1944. Both crews totaling eight men were lost.

[peabody]

I know that my thoughts are unpopular, and I love the sight and sound (and odor) of vintage planes flying.

However, I view the survivors as National Treasures and think that it might be time to ground them.

Preserve what few are left.

[GallopingGhostler]

They were two RAAF Bristol Beauforts, collided 15 Miles West of Bundaberg Queensland Australia, 21 APRIL 1944. Both crews totaling eight men were lost.

Thanks for clarifying, I was going on my vague memory without verifying.



Sorry for deviating off topic, but here is an interesting video of recovery of a lost 1943 Australian Beaufort crew found in 2000, glad to see there was closure for the families.

On 15 November 1943, Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Beaufort Bomber A9-217 with a crew of four went missing somewhere between Rabaul, New Britain and Goodenough Island in the Solomon Sea. The aircraft was one of 12 Beauforts engaged in a torpedo attack on enemy shipping near Rabaul Harbour. During the return trip from the mission the aircraft became separated and A9-217 was last seen at the southern end of St George's Channel. Army observer personnel stationed on Kawa Island, which is located approximately 80 kilometres west of the Trobriand Island group and 100 kilometres north of the Vivigani Base, saw an aircraft in trouble crash into the sea nearby. A patrol boat from Kiriwina Island was dispatched to the area to investigate, and upon arrival, it located a fuel tank belonging to the crashed aircraft. No survivors were found at the scene and the crew were officially reported as missing, presumed dead.
 
In January 2000 Air Force Headquarters was notified that wreckage of an aircraft had recently been discovered lying in 18 metres of water mear Kawa Island. Investigations of the site were conducted and aircraft positively identified as A9-217. In March 2001 an Air Force team successfully recovered the remains of the four crew from the wrecked aircraft. The airmen were laid to rest with full military honours at the Rabaul (Bita Paka) War Cemetery on 2 May 2001.

Regarding the grounding of any further flights of ancient aircraft, those were refurbished as private ventures, not government. They did go through FAA recertification to ensure flight worthiness. Doing such may discourage any further rehabilitation of such, meaning the loss of anything but those already in museums.

When in close proximity of each other, there is always more risk involved. This video of the crash explains the visibility problems of the P-63:



The crash no doubt will cause the promoters and executors of such events to place further precautions to prevent such from happening again.

[Mike Griffin]

After this crash, there are only 8 B17s and 3 King Cobras that are still air worthy, according to an article I just read.    I think they are all maintained by the Confederate/Commemorative Air Force.  We have a large CAF hangar here at New Orleans Lakefront Airport and some of the guys were in our Civil Air Patrol squadron.  Thank God there were no paying passengers on board the B17.  They charged $700.00 per person, per ride when they had the air show here in New Orleans.

Mike

[Teodorico Terry]

Looking at the videos there it appears that the planes were circling the field as you would do in a skating ring; all going in the same general direction but not necessarily keeping station as you would if flying in a formation.  With more than a few airplanes generally trying to occupy the same airspace at the same time it does not seem like the best way to operate.  The video reminded me of those that show R/C model aircraft getting into mid-airs.

[Mike Griffin]

What I do not understand is why they were at the same altitude. 

Mike

[Air Ministry .]

f#*%ing appalling .

Says six dead , which is a frigging site better than what could have been . The old cumulative era problem .

Perhaps if active service pilots were required the proceedural thing would be more ridgid and the odds of error would be less .

This one Id say was c riminally lax air traffic control / communications .

[john e. holliday]

It is sad and tragic to lose two aircraft and the crews.  Some one was not doing their job as they should not have been in that situation.

Also we should think of those that witnessed this disaster.

[Dan McEntee]

What I do not understand is why they were at the same altitude. 

Mike

  Hi Mike;
    It's a typical pattern for a display at any airshow where they want to show off the heavy bombers and fighters at the same time. They have an area on the far side of the airshow center line where they set up a lot of pyrotechnics that simulate bomb explosions and machine gun strafing. The bomber usually pass by at a couple of hundred feet with their bomb bay doors open, and their flight path is usually the center line of the runway, so they are offset from the blasts for safety. When the bomber gets to the correct position, then some one sets off a pyro charge. The fighters fly by at different altitudes in a skating rink or race horse track pattern like they are "protecting the bombers." The best example of this is the CAF "Tora, Tora, Tora, " Pearl Harbor re-enactment. In that they use replica Japanese fighters, some of which were used in the movie "Tora, Tora, Tora."  It's pretty exciting and is usually well choreographed. If you know how and where to look, at each end of the air show box, you can see the spacing and gaps that the build into the routine. I've seen this  type of routine done countless times during my life time of attending airshows including Oshkosh for 17 years, where it happened several times a week! I really never get tired of it, and the last ting I would have ever thought would happen is a collision like this. It was practice day for the show, I think I read,  and maybe there was some one new in the mix. I think most likely the P-63 pilot. He missed his mark for him to make his turn to follow the B-17 and misjudged several things. Once he got to a certain point in the turn, I don't think he could even see the bomber at his angle of bank, and the long nose of the airplane and just general poor visibility out of the cockpit that the P-63 was more or less known for. If he had missed his assigned altitude also, he would never have seen the B-17 to make an adjustment in his flight path or altitude. It will start with the P-63pilot and travel down hill from there when looking for a cause. No blame to either airplane.  Just tragic any way you look at it. But I don't think it's any reason to stop flying these great old birds. They are probably in better condition than the ever were, and in this day and age, vintage war birds are built from nothing more than a data plate, an engine and a few bits and pieces. All it takes is dedication, time and money. It would be a great monument to these air crews to resurrect the crashed airplanes, as impossible as it may seem.
  Type at you later,
  Dan McEntee

[Peter in Fairfax, VA]

FYI, KHOU-11 has a report:

https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/texas/dallas-plane-crash-air-show/285-a74db4ac-76ad-43f8-bca0-6de9c9206837

[Carl Cisneros]

NTSB UPDATE

[wwwarbird]

    I think they are all maintained by the Confederate/Commemorative Air Force.

 Incorrect.

[wwwarbird]

What I do not understand is why they were at the same altitude. 

 They weren't, until the collision.

[Peter in Fairfax, VA]

One thing I noticed from the NTSB briefing Carl shared is how many planes were in the "performance box" at the same time.  Dan, who has been to many airshows, can likely comment on that aspect of air show culture.

[Steve_Pollock]

IMHO not only should warbirds fly, they should be operational as shown in the video below.

[dave siegler]

From some aviation people looking at the ADSB data, the P63 was instructed to catch up to some mustangs ahead. The P63 may have dived for speed to do so and had to turn tightly to stay on track. The Fighters were supposed to be inside and above the bombers, the P63, turned inside the B17 and could not see (below the nose and belly) it.  That is why at  Reno you can only pass on the outside and above someone.   


Juan Brown is usually right on. 

[Rusty]

When I was a teenager and taking flying lessons, my CFI told me aviation is one of the most unforgiving activities you can do. 

It saddened me greatly when I saw this story.  I have witnessed an aircraft crash before where the pilot was killed.  The guy was flying a Cessna 172 and did a full power stall on take off.  He owned the Suzuki shop and sponsored me in motocross racing.  I was around 16 and it was so upsetting I quit flying for years. 

Condolences to the families. 

[Frank Imbriaco]

 Just breaking...
It's looking like the P-63 struck a drone moments before the mid-air. The drone strike potentially altered its flight path.

[Mike Griffin]

Just breaking...
It's looking like the P-63 struck a drone moments before the mid-air. The drone strike potentially altered its flight path.

WHAT??

[Frank Imbriaco]

It came across my phone. trying for a link.

[Ken Culbertson]

It came across my phone. trying for a link.

I read that they are suspicious that the video was edited.  Looks like a believable scam.

Ken

[Tim Just]

“normal” procedure in these types of events where dissimilar aircraft participate is to have three separation plans. Lateral, vertical and time.  In my experience you plan for all three and hope at least one is always working.  I have no idea what was briefed at this event.

In the above video analysis it is mentioned that a pilot can not fly over the deadline.  This is not entirely correct.  The rule is no energy directed towards the crowd line. The deadline is a viable exit if required.

Tim

[Frank Imbriaco]

I read that they are suspicious that the video was edited.  Looks like a believable scam.

Ken

  Ken :  Not  entirely sure what you mean by a "believable scam ".
I've had  lots of trouble  today with internet disruptions  because of strong east coast winds and storms so I haven't had success linking it. You seem to be on your computer a lot so Google it. I recall "Planes & Pilots", a legitimate  source reported it. There is a video.

[Frank Imbriaco]

https://twitter.com/ArthurM40330824/status/1596028135434506240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1596028135434506240%7Ctwgr%5E0e66bc35a6e3dc78f6ced94caa4baee6c0c29c49%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Feurasiantimes.com%2Fmid-air-horror-did-us-b-17-bomber-p-63-kingcobra-collide%2F

[Ken Culbertson]

  Ken :  Not  entirely sure what you mean by a "believable scam ".
I've had  lots of trouble  today with internet disruptions  because of strong east coast winds and storms so I haven't had success linking it. You seem to be on your computer a lot so Google it. I recall "Planes & Pilots", a legitimate  source reported it. There is a video.

They reported it with a disclaimer.  You are right, I am on them a lot.  Make my living supporting and writing software.  Have 3 computers and 4 monitors at my desk and one always has a window on SH.
What I meant was that it was believable that the plane hit a drone but that it only shows on one edited video after a week has my BS meter pegged.  Still could be true but this video is one of the first on the web and every kook with a computer could have downloaded it.  Just what are the odds of a drone hitting a prop and causing any real damage.  Sucked into a jet sure.  Also the video shows the "thing" (could be a bird) being thrown off as if it hit the prop then it just disappears.  Even if it was a bird and the windscreen got soaked in bird guts would you, as a pilot, react by going into a dive at 500'?  What you are seeing is a cell phone camera with at least some "fish eye" effect flying over in a shallow turning dive.  Whatever that thing is/was probably had nothing to do with the accident.

Ken

[Frank Imbriaco]

They reported it with a disclaimer.  You are right, I am on them a lot.  Make my living supporting and writing software.  Have 3 computers and 4 monitors at my desk and one always has a window on SH.
What I meant was that it was believable that the plane hit a drone but that it only shows on one edited video after a week has my BS meter pegged.  Still could be true but this video is one of the first on the web and every kook with a computer could have downloaded it.  Just what are the odds of a drone hitting a prop and causing any real damage.  Sucked into a jet sure.  Also the video shows the "thing" (could be a bird) being thrown off as if it hit the prop then it just disappears.  Even if it was a bird and the windscreen got soaked in bird guts would you, as a pilot, react by going into a dive at 500'?  What you are seeing is a cell phone camera with at least some "fish eye" effect flying over in a shallow turning dive.  Whatever that thing is/was probably had nothing to do with the accident.

Ken

KEN, I don't know if fact but you're wrong about what a drone can do. About four years ago, a military heli over Staten Island , NY had to make an emergency landing from blade damage caused by a drone. Look it up.

[dave siegler]

“normal” procedure in these types of events where dissimilar aircraft participate is to have three separation plans. Lateral, vertical and time.  In my experience you plan for all three and hope at least one is always working.  I have no idea what was briefed at this event.

In the above video analysis it is mentioned that a pilot can not fly over the deadline.  This is not entirely correct.  The rule is no energy directed towards the crowd line. The deadline is a viable exit if required.

Tim

Correct and there is a video of the briefing, I hope becomes public. 

there is a rule that all passes in a turn should be on the outside and high (from racing) so both planes can stay in visual contact and clearly, the p63 came up behind on the same altitude and inside the B17,  No way for either plane to see the each other.  And the air boss was acting like and parking lot attendant, not an ATC. 

[wwwarbird]

 Forget the drone conspiracy theory, a totally ignorant and very disrespectful thought that some idiot dreamt up and threw into the mix.

 This attached report is far from a final answer, but very interesting and the beginning of an accurate and realistic explanation.

 

[Chris McMillin]

[Mquote author=dave siegler link=topic=62650.msg647949#msg647949 date=1669908810]
Correct and there is a video of the briefing, I hope becomes public. 

there is a rule that all passes in a turn should be on the outside and high (from racing) so both planes can stay in visual contact and clearly, the p63 came up behind on the same altitude and inside the B17,  No way for either plane to see the each other.  And the air boss was acting like and parking lot attendant, not an ATC.
[/quote]

I've seen reference to the Air Boss somehow being able and/or defined as an air traffic controller separating traffic. That is not his job nor is it even possible. If you are a pilot ask yourself a serious question about separation by ATC in visual conditions and then compare to this operation. No way could an Air Boss separate, nor is that their job.
Chris...

[john e. holliday]

Yes that is a tragic loss of the planes and the aviaters.  Let just hope it never happens again.

[dave siegler]

No he can't, but in this case, the airboss asked or instructed the pilots to "change lanes"

The bombers were on an orbit, closer to the crowd and the faster fighters were in a tighter orbit slightly further out.  The airboss instructed the fighters and bombers to swap. 

like any accident, multiple failures can be seen.  it's a tragic loss. 

I've seen reference to the Air Boss somehow being able and/or defined as an air traffic controller separating traffic. That is not his job nor is it even possible. If you are a pilot ask yourself a serious question about separation by ATC in visual conditions and then compare to this operation. No way could an Air Boss separate, nor is that their job.
Chris...