So sad to see the plane crash in Texas. One less B-17

True, not ATC in the formal commercial airline sense, but somebody must have been in charge of that airspace from the local tower, and they are gonna get it in the neck! After all, even in the great state of Texas there must be permits to hold airshows, and that puts responsibility for H&S on somebody’s shoulders…

Oh, and if they can’t keep up with the swirling mess they shouldn’t create it in the first place!

1 Like

My wild guess at ATC routine:
Define a flying pattern, upwind along the runway left/right turn at marker X, back downwind to marker Y, left/right to runway, stay at height nnnn feet downwind, stay at some other altitude upwind, watch out for traffic ahead and to your left/right. Altitude changes are to be made outside the pattern. No radio chatter except for altitude changes and coming in for an unplanned landing.

It would get really busy with 7-8 planes

On the net somewhere there is a recording of ATC telling the P63 what to do. I can’t find it again.

Food for thought - Some years back I was in a modelrailroad club. Three of the ‘older’ guys were WW2 vets. One a pilot who was a flight instructor in Canada trying to instruct numerous commonwealth pilots. He flew Harvards/Texans. One a tail gunner in a Lancaster. He told many a good near miss story. The third was a pilot who flew a Mustang in the Pacific and was stationed in Japan after the war. (Told a good story about buzzing the airfield one too many times. Did a wheels up landing!!!).
Anyway my point is this. I could never really relate to those guys until I was up in Maine when a P47 flew over head. The hairs on the back of my neck stood up trying to imagine what a whole flock of them would have sounded like. Then a few years later I was in Denver when a B17 was flying around. The sound was something else.
Now I know I will never experience what those guys experienced during WW2. But the restored birds certainly gave me a hint at what it was like. We can’t, simply can’t ground these connections with our past and what those guys did for all of us.

2 Likes

A museum near my hometown is restoring a Lancaster and Mosquito to running condition but I don’t think they have plans to fly them. When they got the engines working they had an event at the museum where they pulled the Lancaster out and fired up the engines. It was unbelievable how loud they were!

I was thinking how many times this exact thing must have happened or almost happened in WW2

1 Like

Gonna hold you to that, Robin! Spontaneous chatter shouldn’t be a trait of a moderator, should it? Think before you type, it’s here foreverrrrrrrrr.

1 Like

I am no aircraft crash investigator. But I am a trained traffic collision investigator (basic, intermediate, and advanced investigation courses) now retired. Traffic collisions are called those, and not accidents because one of the parties involved, or sometimes both, made an improper decision, usually the violation of a traffic safety law, that leads to the collision. Just as the classic “accidental discharge” or a firearm is now more properly called a negligent discharge, because the shooter negligently violated well established firearm safety protocols and fires off a round as a result.
Unless there is an unforseeable act of nature involved, say perhaps lightning, animals, or an earthquake, or some form of material flaw induced equipment failure, in most every other case there is a human error cause.

1 Like

A tragedy indeed as I said before. I’m more saddened by a needless loss of life than the B-17 though.
However, words do not remain here forever. One moderator who is famous for being wrong as often as his Wikipedia quotes make him right likes to go back 1984 style and change what he said. That’s why the “quote” feature is one of my favorites.

4 Likes

There’s a lot of wisdom in this post.

I know a bit about airshow/air event operations having run aerobatic competitions for two years. It’s no back-of-the-envelope operation.

Before the event gets scheduled, the airspace is waivered by the organizers through the FAA. In some cases they have to complete an environmental study. Then the FAA issues a TFR for the location. Essentially all air traffic is banned in the area unless specifically allowed by the event. In the case of an air show, there will be an “air boss” who is responsible for everything. He is the unquestioned king of the airspace. Nobody moves an inch without permission. Every day of the show the air boss holds a mandatory, all hands briefing where every procedure is rehearsed and briefed in front of everyone. There are no deviations “on the fly.” The FAA is involved in all this.

Day of the show, the air boss runs everything. It’s my impression from the videos that the three fighters—of which the P-63 was the last one—were climbing, possibly from takeoff, and joining the big loop. The AB would have given that clearance. But there’s a very big HOWEVER here: the boss gives the go ahead to takeoff and join up. It’s up to each individual pilot to do that safely. Can’t really get around the fact that there will be a certain amount of individual responsibility involved. If a pilot fails to live up to that, accidents happen.

Just like merging into the interstate/autobahn/freeway. The light turned green and told you you were clear to go. But safely merging into 60-80mph traffic is your responsibility alone. No traffic light, air boss, or regulation can get around that.

It’s why aviation has the concept of “pilot in command.” It’s in the nature of flying that decisions of safety have to be made in the moment, so only the pilot is ultimately responsible for safety. To the point where interfering with the PIC’s safe operation of the flight according to his judgment is a federal crime.

Let’s not armchair quarterback this thing without all the information and a dose of humility. Nothing against the great people here, but I highly doubt the secret solution to the accident is to be found on a plastic modeling forum. :slight_smile:

4 Likes

After reading the analysis of the 2019 crash. I to think they should be grounded probably. I visit the cavanaugh flight museum often and see them working on past planes.

Maybe if you read this story you might understand another side of the picture with these planes and generally the group still flying them.

@Spitfire actually the FAA is more lax on them because of heritage regs.

2 Likes

And if you take the time to read that article you would understand my change of mind of flying in any of the heritage planes.

1 Like

@Mrclark7

It’s my understanding that the heritage regs refer to a set of exemptions that allow certain Limited and Experimental category warbird aircraft to fly with paying passengers, i.e. give rides. Nothing changes with airshow procedures and safety (as passengers aren’t allowed). Is this wrong?

I generally think your right. But there seems to be a good old boy culture with pilots and FAA that in the past has shown how the FAA has failed the public on warning signs with many accidents, be it parachute schools, training schools, or other airshow accidents. As with many, there seems to be a multiple amounts of “gremlins” that seem to happen with these and not just one factor.

1 Like

Great article. Thanks for sharing

1 Like

Both planes at an airshow two weeks ago:

Compilation of different viewing angles with comments:

Okay that’s what I thought. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that means the heritage regs didn’t have anything to do with the accident this weekend. Airshows are airshows and what I wrote above is true. I don’t want the readers confused.

As far as regulation, I can speak from personal experience that it most certainly does not feel like the FAA is hands-off from our perspective. They’re definitely a big federal agency with all the zealous enforcement that comes with that. Sure, some field agents are different, but I’d strongly disagree with the proposition that the Feds are generally lax and don’t interfere enough, fwiw. That’s not the experience on the ground.

Collings was a unique case and unfortunately they paid for it. They were something of a known quantity in the warbird world. Also, while that article is good, they definitely shade things to make warbirds look bad (the heritage regs for example don’t really “exempt the operators from installing safety equipment required of the airlines,” they preserve the character of these airplanes so they can still be a B-17. Nobody wants a ride in a vintage airplane that looks like a Boeing inside, and it’s pretty disingenuous for them to suggest that). The media does that a lot so as to scare people, like they have you! :slightly_smiling_face: The National Airspace System, from regulations to airspace designations, is set up for the airlines. They run the show in lobbying and in the FAA’s mind. Little airplanes are often treated differently and it’s not a safety breach, it’s just recognizing reality. A little Cessna with the safety equipment of an Airbus wouldn’t be able to get off the ground!

All that said, it’s certainly a legitimate position to think all these aircraft should be grounded. You’re not the only one who thinks that, for sure. I just want to provide a counterpoint from my perspective “inside the fence.”

2 Likes

I don’t for a moment think these aircraft should be grounded. The smiles on my girls’ faces a few years ago made the C-47 flight worth every penny.


I have photographed Texas Raiders and we did a walk through of it a few years ago, probably the same year we flew in the C-47. We decided if we had a chance to fly in it (or Liberty Belle or Chuckie, which I’ve also photographed) we would do so without hesitation. My girls are not the Emily Dickinson type, sequestered away in the safety of their home for fear something bad might happen.

5 Likes

Cool photos!

1 Like

Couldn’t agree more. I had the honor and pleasure of going up in the B-17 “909” many years ago ('02?) with my wife’s grandfather who was a ball turret gunner in one during WWII. The smile on his face to be back up in that plane far outweighed any inherent risk.

Too bad '909" is gone as well.

2 Likes

Excellent memories, Bravo!

I agree, keep em flying, if the money is there. I saw one up close (B-17) at MYF, Monkey Field in San Diego, at a Confederate AF display. There was not an airshow, if I remember correctly, only static display, airspace and locality issues. The tkts to just get on the bird were out of my reach, my two boys loved that bird, though. I don’t remember which one it was, that was before 9/11.

We need to keep that memory alive, as you can see, by today’s current atmosphere, history is being erased, intentionally. We can’t afford to let that happen, especially these beauties of the skys!

1 Like