Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,098
That was the video footage i was thinking about in my post above..... your interpretation of the aftermath is ........ unusual i would say and i dont think that ever crossed my mind.
Soldato
There is a great book - Empire of the Clouds.
Test pilots back then were like the David Beckhams of the 00's, and their life expectancies were absolutely dismal.
Edit: and de Havilland himself was nuts. 2 of his 3 kids died test piloting his own aircraft, chasing the speed of sound.
It is a great book, buy it!
Last edited:
My interpretation? You maybe haven't seen the documentary on it that I watched. The aftermath footage shows people running about in sheer terror and horror, a father holding his dying son; and walking away from this frantic crowd is the pilot or co-pilot, chest out walking away from the carnage he caused, never once stopping to help or carry the wounded. He just wanted to GTFO from there, probably worried that the crowd would be out to get him, but they had other priorities such as finding loved ones.
I'll definitely be looking in to this. Will go nicely next to the space I've reserved for my copy of Sled Driver.
Not much in regards to the airspace because an airshow, they aren't going to warn pilots of nearby aircraft because that's the entire point. It's the responsibility of the pilots.
Associate
the infamous aftermath video of that was my first experience of the dark side of the internet
Last edited:
Soldato
Possible reasons, explained in this Safe for Work video.
I fly commercially but have no experience of display flying but this seems to be key...
I find it hard to believe that the slower, less manoeuvrable bombers weren't seperated from the faster fighters with hard altitude restrictions. It could be that the P63 pilot lost situation awareness and allowed his aircraft the descend below this hard altitude. Less likely I suppose is that the bomber crew broke theirs.
I don't think there is any system (at least that I know of ) that could provide collision avoidance information for aircraft at an airshow. TCAS II would be useless and thats the only thing I can think of. Possibly some kind of altitude alerting system may of helped in this case if the fault was some kind of altitude bust but I don't think its possible to really know either way. The only effective instrument in an airshow is with the mark I eyeball.
In the aftermath of the Shoreham crash I was astonished at the lack of currency on the aircraft the mishap pilot had. He was a very experienced fast jet pilot but that dated to decades before - he seemed to have had very little recent experience of the type of flying he was doing that day - I believe only a couple of flight hours in the previous year. Due to the expense of such training I believe this is not uncommon at airshows and something I've always thought should be questioned.
I find it hard to believe that the slower, less manoeuvrable bombers weren't seperated from the faster fighters with hard altitude restrictions. It could be that the P63 pilot lost situation awareness and allowed his aircraft the descend below this hard altitude. Less likely I suppose is that the bomber crew broke theirs.
I don't think there is any system (at least that I know of ) that could provide collision avoidance information for aircraft at an airshow. TCAS II would be useless and thats the only thing I can think of. Possibly some kind of altitude alerting system may of helped in this case if the fault was some kind of altitude bust but I don't think its possible to really know either way. The only effective instrument in an airshow is with the mark I eyeball.
In the aftermath of the Shoreham crash I was astonished at the lack of currency on the aircraft the mishap pilot had. He was a very experienced fast jet pilot but that dated to decades before - he seemed to have had very little recent experience of the type of flying he was doing that day - I believe only a couple of flight hours in the previous year. Due to the expense of such training I believe this is not uncommon at airshows and something I've always thought should be questioned.
Soldato
Sorry thats rubbish. The airboss is in charge of the display. Apparently the display this year was changed from previous - last year they had the bombers in a trail formation with the fighters above with altitude separation in a 3 ship ; this year all aircraft were at a similar height.
Last edited:
He's not wrong - it is 100% the responsibilty of the pilots to maintain separation from other aircraft.
Soldato
He`s also not 100% correct ; whilst the pilot flying is in charge in the air, an aircraft hitting the ground is the end of a chain of events. The video above makes a very good point - 500 feet, with zero altitude separation leaves no margin for any errors. Wheres the escape route in case of emergency? It would have been under the B17, which at 500 feet isnt going to happen. The airboss cleared the 3 aircraft, 2 P51`s and the P63 to overtake the B17 and fly ahead; the P63 did this in a turn and at a much higher speed than the B17. Did the P63 lose situational awareness? Yes. However safety minimums were not accounted for and would have been discovered in the practise, which was cancelled.
Last edited:
There is no perfect system - but the Garmin suites a lot of smaller planes can fit can give a fairly good representation these days up to a point - they'd be useless for aerobatics like the Red Arrows, etc. do but can give some guidance in a reasonably spaced formation. No guarantee of avoiding a collision like this but can significantly help with awareness.
Absolutely. It's heartbreaking not just because of the loss of life, but we lost two historic planes as well!
I don't doubt there will be a series of causal events which contributed to the event, possibly in the planning stage of the airshow, but from a legal perspective the responsibilty lies with the pilot. Also, I stand to be corrected on this but the airboss isn't an air traffic controller and has no authority to clear an aircraft to do anything - they can cancel the show if they think its unsafe. And even they were - if the pilot in command accepts an unsafe clearance from ATC and something happens its on the pilot.
There are a few ATC guys on this forum who will know better but I suspect none of them would be giving out the kind of detailed instructions required to avoid a collision at an airshow.
I've had a go in a fancy garmin system fitted to a Cessna 172 and it certainly makes the avionics of the B737 I fly on a daily basis look ancient but I'm not sure it really did much in terms of providing additional information to the pilot. It just did so in a format that was possibly easier to read.
Also, I suspect the cost of fitting/certification of one of these systems to an old warbird would be prohibitively expensive (possibly more than the value of the aircraft itself). As far as I am aware it's never been done - there's probably a reason for that.
Soldato
Watch the video above, the airboss is in charge of the display (its an american term, on a carrier, the airboss is a vice admiral rank) and it is reported he instructed the 3 fighters to pass the B17 after the turn.
The airboss on a carrier is a completely different thing to one at a private airshow - I've watched the video and had a quick google and I can find nothing to suggest an airboss at that kind of show has to have any kind of ATC qualification or has any legal authority to issue clearances or instructions. A better analogy would probably be the conductor at an orchestra. When the narrator in the video states the airboss gives an instruction to do this that or the other, that instruction, as far as I am aware this is simply guidance and comes with no authority.
As I said - we have ATC guys on this forum, hopefully one will come along and clear that up.
Last edited:
Still far from a perfect system - I was watching a police chase in LA the other day from multiple perspectives from the ground and air including streaming from onboard showing the avionic systems, with 7 helis and 3 light aircraft in close proximity following it - it was giving a fairly decent representation even down to dozens of feet but there would be glitches with positions suddenly changing by significant margins, etc. especially the ADS-B fed data (and with an air show often only a subset of aircraft are broadcasting ADS-B).
Last edited: