Shocking news B-17 Texas Raiders and P-63 collide, destroyed

[Dave Homewood]

Good point Bruce.

[Dave Homewood]

All the names of those who died have now been released. RIP.

commemorativeairforce.org/news/names-of-the-aircrew-from-texas-raiders-and-the-kingcobra?

[retiredav8r]

They do keep those that "have a need to know" in the loop. Even being retired I still get updates on the progress of an investigation, sometime in depth, sometimes very brief. Depending on the accident and the current number under investigation, the results can be rapid or extended. Watching the representative from the NSTB, he stated that the debris will be relocated and reassembled in a place yet to be determined. These investigations can take years, they will let us know when they have the answers.

[davidd]

I totally agree with Bruce's explanation (above), and I also agree that the American system does give enough information, or hints, that should at least quieten down the speculation to a large degree (although some speculators don't want to be quietened down).

[Deleted]

Nov 14, 2022 20:48:24 GMT 12 Bruce said:

Nov 14, 2022 14:19:12 GMT 12 retiredav8r said:

I just wonder if it would be the same had this been at a New Zealand or Australian event. Quote Yates.
Well of course they would, or do you think they would send them a bill for littering?

What I think Zac is getting at is that the NTSB actually gives interim progress update statements as they do their investigation.

Apologies all, my meaning apparently was unclear: what I should have said was "I wonder if so many videos and photos would be shared here if this incident happened in New Zealand or Australia". I will endeavour to be less subtle.

[Dave Homewood]

If you have a problem with the videos being shared here Zac, you do not have to look.

They have also been shared on just about every other aviation group online in the last few days, as well as thousands of news sites. I don't think I was being disrespectful to those who died. The only thing disrespectful is people blatantly speculating and pointing blame, and there has certainly been plenty of that on other sites.

NZ crash photos and videos have been shared here before. Again without speculation as we do not allow that. Thankfully most have not been fatal but if other pilots can learn lessons then why not?

[johnnyfalcon]

Nov 15, 2022 11:52:27 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

NZ crash photos and videos have been shared here before. Again without speculation as we do not allow that. Thankfully most have not been fatal but if other pilots can learn lessons then why not?

Even a certain amount of informed speculation can be constructive towards safety. For example; the Hood mid-air prompted considered observations regarding overhead rejoins at uncontrolled aerodromes. An opportunity to review one's own airmanship.

[baz62]

This is an ADS-B track video showing the lead Mustang and the P63 (not the second Mustang for some reason). Through out the roll towards the display line the P63 is banked to the left and inside the B17 track so would have no chance to see anything to his right. It's going to take some investigating as to what the display plan was re tracks flown for two very different types (ie fast fighters and slower Bomber)timings and the tracks to be flown. Lest hope this helps someone else planning an airshow display in the future on the real risks of aircraft display work. EDIT: I did wonder why the P63 didn't see the B17 as he flew towards the turn point but I'm told he would have been watching the Mustang he was following (he's in formation in trail) plus he was highr than the B17 so he may not have seen him as he was "under" his nose for the most part.

[planewriting]

"Through out the roll towards the display line the P63 is banked to the left and inside the B17 track so would have no chance to see anything to his right". That would be correct Baz and should be clearly recognised even before the investigation begins. Question is though, why did such a dangerous set of circumstances eventuate? Something wasn't right somewhere, either in the planning process, or during the actual routine. It will all be revealed one day.

[mcmaster]

Juan Browne’s channel shows how with previous bomber parades the bombers flew past at lower altitude with the fighters in formation above. The investigation will show why this may have changed to what seemed to be a very conflicted pattern with faster fighters at around 500 feet with the bombers. Little room to also take evasive action. Strong winds were also a factor that day.

[tbf2504]

We had a mid-air here at Paraparaumu well before the Masterton accident. It resulted in a change to overhead rejoins i.e. were not permitted, and the installation of a flight information system tower at the field.

[nuuumannn]

Nov 14, 2022 20:48:24 GMT 12 Bruce said:

Nov 14, 2022 14:19:12 GMT 12 retiredav8r said:

I just wonder if it would be the same had this been at a New Zealand or Australian event. Quote Yates.
Well of course they would, or do you think they would send them a bill for littering?

What I think Zac is getting at is that the NTSB actually gives interim progress update statements as they do their investigation. In New Zealand, TAIC / CAA say absolutely nothing for the 2-3 years it takes to complete the investigation, which of course feeds speculation and rumours. I can understand both positions, but having even an interim statement at least helps make people more aware of potential hazards.

Indeed; it's good PR to keep producing updates throughout an accident investigation. This most importantly helps inform the victims' families and friends of the course of the investigation without having to reveal too many otherwise difficult details that might not be suitable for public consumption. The public at large have no real need to be kept informed, but family and friends of the deceased and involved parties do expect some form of information flow until the final report is released by the Investigator-In-Charge. It is up to him/her, however as to what is released into the public domain and when.

[ErrolC]

NTSB issued the preliminary report for its ongoing investigation of the Nov. 12, 2022, mid-air collision between a Boeing B-17G airplane and a Bell P-63F airplane in Dallas, Texas. Download the report
PDF: data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/106276/pdf

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.

[Deleted]

Thank you for sharing that, Errol, I didn't expect something so quickly. Here's a Washington Post story (link) for those interested:

Report: No altitude advice before Dallas air show crash
By Jamie Stengle and Jake Bleiberg | AP
November 30, 2022 at 11:44 p.m. EST

DALLAS — Just before a midair collision that killed six at a Dallas air show, a group of historic fighter planes was told to fly ahead of a formation of bombers without any prior plan for coordinating altitude, according to a federal report released Wednesday. The report did not give a cause of the crash.

A P-63 Kingcobra fighter was banking left when it struck a B-17 Flying Fortress bomber behind the left wing during the Nov. 12 air show featuring World War II-era planes, the National Transportation Safety Board said in its preliminary findings. All six people aboard the planes — the pilot of the fighter and the bomber’s pilot, co-pilot and three crew members — died as both aircraft broke apart in flight, with the bomber catching fire and then exploding on impact.

There had been no coordination of altitudes in briefings before the flight or while the planes were in the air, the NTSB said. The report said that the Kingcobra was the third in a formation of three fighters and the B-17 was the lead of a five-ship bomber formation.

Eric Weiss, an NTSB spokesperson, said the agency is trying to determine the sequence of maneuvers that led to the crash. It is also examining whether such air shows normally have altitude deconfliction plans.

“Those are precisely the types of questions our investigators are asking,” Weiss said. “What was the process? What’s the correct process? And what happened?”

John Cox, a former airline captain with more than 50 years’ experience, was surprised that the NTSB found there wasn’t an altitude deconfliction brief before or during the flight. He said these take place in other air shows, but he’s not certain whether they’re standard for the Commemorative Air Force, which put on the Wings over Dallas show.

A person familiar with the show’s operations that day said the air crews were given general altitude direction in their morning pre-show briefing. However, there was not a discussion of specific altitudes for each pass the aircraft were going to perform, said the person, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and did so on condition of anonymity.

Typically fighters fly above bombers, and when a group is called to make a pass that could put planes at the same or nearly the same altitudes, they maintain a lateral separation from each other, the person said. In general, the person continued, it’s the responsibility of the air boss to set out a plan for maintaining either vertical or lateral separation.

Wings Over Dallas was the group’s last show of the season, the person said.

The NTSB said the fighter formation had been told by the air boss to proceed to a line that was 500 feet (152 meters) from where the audience was lined up at Dallas Executive Airport, while the bomber formation was told to fly 1,000 feet (304 meters) from the audience viewing area.

The NTSB said a navigation device on the bomber “contained position information relevant to the accident” but a device on the fighter didn’t record during the flight.

The Commemorative Air Force, which put on the show for Veterans Day, said Wednesday that they’re continuing to work with the NTSB and are grateful for that agency’s “diligence in looking into anything that could have been a factor to cause the accident.” The group said they can’t speculate on the crash’s cause.

The Commemorative Air Force previously identified the victims as: Terry Barker, Craig Hutain, Kevin “K5” Michels, Dan Ragan, Leonard “Len” Root and Curt Rowe.

All the men were volunteers who had gone through a strict process of logging hours and training flights and were vetted carefully, Hank Coates, CEO of Commemorative Air Force, said after the crash.

Cox said the planes were flown by experienced pilots and that it’s “virtually certain” the pilot of the smaller, more maneuverable fighter didn’t see the bomber. He said understanding how this happened will be a central challenge for investigators.

“What happened for two pilots of this skill level to end up in the same airspace at the same time?” said Cox, the founder of Safety Operating Systems, which helps smaller airlines and corporate flight services around the world with safety planning.

The air show collision came three years after the crash of a bomber in Connecticut that killed seven, and amid ongoing concern about the safety of shows involving older warplanes.

The B-17, a cornerstone of U.S. air power during World War II, is an immense four-engine bomber that was used in daylight raids against Germany. The Kingcobra, a U.S. fighter, was used mostly by Soviet forces during the war. Most B-17s were scrapped at the end of World War II and only a handful remain today, largely featured at museums and air shows, according to Boeing.

___

Associated Press writer Tara Copp in Washington contributed to this report.

[baronbeeza]

Juan Browne has done a couple of very good YouTube videos on this incident.

This is the follow-up to one we saw posted here the other week.

[Bruce]

I recall an experienced display pilot (Sorry, I have forgotten who it was) saying once that the informal "tailchase" is the most dangerous air display sequence, and he wouldn't ever be involved in one. It appears low risk, but it is very easy to lose situational awareness and run out of space (which appears to have happened here...). From my visit to Oshkosh in the past, I believe it is very common in the US. Compared to UK for example, where at Duxford the "balbo" is a tightly briefed affair with everyone have a set position in the formation and a clearly briefed pattern.

[FlyingKiwi]

I suppose any time you have high closing speeds the risk is going to be elevated. One thing I remember learning when I started formation flying was, within reason obviously, closer is safer. If you're really close to the other aircraft and you happen to collide there's probably going to be much less damage than if you're fifty feet away and then you collide. The Blue Angels and Thunderbirds have had a few collisions that resulted in very minimal damage and no loss of aircraft because they essentially just brushed into each other with very little relative difference in motion. It's usually a bit easier to hold station when you're close in because you see any changes in position very quickly.

[davidd]

I remember when the Dragon Rapide/Domine and the Cessna 172 (latter was a very early model, probably an "A"), landed at Wigram in the 1980s after their aerial collision during (I think) an "air race" down the length of NZ. One of the Cessna's wingtips pierced the belly of the rear fuselage of the Dominie, and then the two aircraft parted, and proceeded on to Wigram, landing there without further drama (cannot recall which aircraft landed first, but I was certainly pleased to see the second aircraft arrive safely.) Good job that the Dominie's control runs are not routed through the belly! The Cessna's wingtip and aileron was bent upwards at a spectacular angle, and the Dominie's belly was rather torn open and was a mass of fluttering fabric, must have been a scary time for all the occupants of these two aircraft. The newspapers at the time made a thing of the "poor view" from vintage aircraft (which somebody had remarked on), although others pointed out that the Dominie pilot had a spectacularly good view from his cockpit (and the Cessna pilot not so much in certain directions). A dramatic incident, and fortunately no injuries, and only relatively minor damage to the aircraft (apart from the Cessna aileron!) There must have been an inquiry into this incident - has anybody come across a written report?

[Deleted]

I recall seeing something about that incident recently but I can't for the life of me recall where...

[FlyingKiwi]

I know it's in John King's book about NZ air accidents with some accompanying photographs however my copy of that is currently in storage.