Texas Air Aces, T-34A out of Hooks Airport north of Houston, crashed
this morning (Tuesday). Both in aircraft deceased.

Flight (two A/C) had not started air combat maneuvers per media and
did not have a mid air????? if you can believe the media. Other A/C
retured to Hooks and landed safely.

Sone media talk on tonights news is that wing failed but nothing
official from TAA or FAA.

Other than deaths, aircraft type and organization have nothing else at
this time.

If/when more data is released, will post.

Big John

Evening news

Don Wiley, owner of Texas Air Aces, was pilot in bird. Passenger has
not been identified as next of kin have not been notified.

Ground witinesses say wing broke and came off (not mid air).

My condolences to the families.

Will track for any other data.


Big John



..



On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:12:20 -0600, Big John >
wrote:

>Texas Air Aces, T-34A out of Hooks Airport north of Houston, crashed
>this morning (Tuesday). Both in aircraft deceased.
>
>Flight (two A/C) had not started air combat maneuvers per media and
>did not have a mid air????? if you can believe the media. Other A/C
>retured to Hooks and landed safely.
>
>Sone media talk on tonights news is that wing failed but nothing
>official from TAA or FAA.
>
>Other than deaths, aircraft type and organization have nothing else at
>this time.
>
>If/when more data is released, will post.
>
>Big John

In article >, Big John
> wrote:

> Ground witinesses say wing broke and came off (not mid air).

The big question will be: "Did it have the spar mod per the AD?"

21:00 Tuesday night TV news

Don Wiley pilot.

Ohio man second individual (said identified but didn' t give name).

One wing found a mile from wreckage (image on screen looks like about
3/5 of wing including tip). Supports structural failure in air as said
other aircraft landed with no damage.

Other mish mash one hears on TV following an accident.

Big John


On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:12:20 -0600, Big John >
wrote:

>Texas Air Aces, T-34A out of Hooks Airport north of Houston, crashed
>this morning (Tuesday). Both in aircraft deceased.
>
>Flight (two A/C) had not started air combat maneuvers per media and
>did not have a mid air????? if you can believe the media. Other A/C
>retured to Hooks and landed safely.
>
>Sone media talk on tonights news is that wing failed but nothing
>official from TAA or FAA.
>
>Other than deaths, aircraft type and organization have nothing else at
>this time.
>
>If/when more data is released, will post.
>
>Big John

According to the Houston Chronicle this morning, they reported that the
Air Aces PR material/website claimed the aircraft had the "baron" spars.
The chronicle does not specifically address wether it was a midair or a
wing failure, but also did not address any damage to the other bird if
it WAS a midair of somekind.

The Chronicle also indicated the accident aircraft was on leaseback
(well.. owned by someone other than Don).

www.chron.com (sorry.. i read it in print, not online).

Blue Skies Don.. Sorry I never got a change to meet you in person while
flyin around up at Hooks

Dave Staten, PPSEL, RN, EMT-Paramedic
KSPX (closed)/KEFD/KLVJ

EDR wrote:
> In article >, Big John
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Ground witinesses say wing broke and came off (not mid air).
>
>
> The big question will be: "Did it have the spar mod per the AD?"

Bill Eisenhower was the name of the other pilot. He use to be a member of
the club that I am trustee for. Although I did not know the man personally,
many members have said that he was a good guy and a great pilot. He got
most of his ratings with our club. He was a commercial airline pilot.



"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> 21:00 Tuesday night TV news
>
> Don Wiley pilot.
>
> Ohio man second individual (said identified but didn' t give name).
>
> One wing found a mile from wreckage (image on screen looks like about
> 3/5 of wing including tip). Supports structural failure in air as said
> other aircraft landed with no damage.
>
> Other mish mash one hears on TV following an accident.
>
> Big John
>
>
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:12:20 -0600, Big John >
> wrote:
>
> >Texas Air Aces, T-34A out of Hooks Airport north of Houston, crashed
> >this morning (Tuesday). Both in aircraft deceased.
> >
> >Flight (two A/C) had not started air combat maneuvers per media and
> >did not have a mid air????? if you can believe the media. Other A/C
> >retured to Hooks and landed safely.
> >
> >Sone media talk on tonights news is that wing failed but nothing
> >official from TAA or FAA.
> >
> >Other than deaths, aircraft type and organization have nothing else at
> >this time.
> >
> >If/when more data is released, will post.
> >
> >Big John
>

Kevin

Some more data.

Yesterday talk was that mission was "upset' training. I had my doubts
about that media report since was a flight of two ships. You don't
need two birds for upset training.

Today they are talking about simulated combat which takes two ships
and would track with what has been put out.

On front page there is a map of the area and the point of crash is
marked with a quote:

"One plane crashes after collision, killing two."

There is nothing in the 20 or so column inches on accident that talks
about a collision.

Data from morning Chronicle

Donald L Wyle 64 was the owner of Air Aces Inc
William Eisenhauer, Jr, 39, of Centerville, OH was second individual.
He had been a pilot for 15 years and worked for Airborne Express.

Retired corporate pilot on ground said, "Two planes were spiraling
around each other, like in mock combat

----clip----

"The whole wing came off," he said. "I just looked at it in
disbelief."

The wing that came off, fell about 1/2 mile from rest of wreckage.
..
It's a shame. Lots of people got to experience simulated combat type
flying that they never would have without this program.

My condolences to both families.

Big John


On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:04:48 -0500, "Kevin Chandler"
> wrote:

>Bill Eisenhower was the name of the other pilot. He use to be a member of
>the club that I am trustee for. Although I did not know the man personally,
>many members have said that he was a good guy and a great pilot. He got
>most of his ratings with our club. He was a commercial airline pilot.
>
>
>
>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>> 21:00 Tuesday night TV news
>>
>> Don Wiley pilot.
>>
>> Ohio man second individual (said identified but didn' t give name).
>>
>> One wing found a mile from wreckage (image on screen looks like about
>> 3/5 of wing including tip). Supports structural failure in air as said
>> other aircraft landed with no damage.
>>
>> Other mish mash one hears on TV following an accident.
>>
>> Big John
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:12:20 -0600, Big John >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Texas Air Aces, T-34A out of Hooks Airport north of Houston, crashed
>> >this morning (Tuesday). Both in aircraft deceased.
>> >
>> >Flight (two A/C) had not started air combat maneuvers per media and
>> >did not have a mid air????? if you can believe the media. Other A/C
>> >retured to Hooks and landed safely.
>> >
>> >Sone media talk on tonights news is that wing failed but nothing
>> >official from TAA or FAA.
>> >
>> >Other than deaths, aircraft type and organization have nothing else at
>> >this time.
>> >
>> >If/when more data is released, will post.
>> >
>> >Big John
>>
>

---------------------- Forwarded Message: ---------------------
From: "T-34 Association, Inc." >
To:
Subject: Texas T-34 Crash
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:36:04 -0600

Main stream news outlets in the Houston area, excerpted in previous
posting in this news group, could lead to a couple of misconceptions
regarding the circumstances of this accident.

1) we understand from informed and knowledgeable sources that the
accident was NOT the result of a mid air collision. Eyewitness
reports from a pilot on the ground and examination of both the
wreckage and the second T-34 give no credence to the theory that one
T-34 made contact with the other. These sources also indicate that
the wing separation appears to be very similar to the Sky Warriors
accident which was ultimately pinned on metal fatigue within the spar
assembly.

2) the airplane that crashed DID NOT have the "Baron spar"
modification. In fact, it appears that the airplane's spar had not
been inspected as required by the A.D. nor had any of the available
AMOCs been applied. This information was inaccurately stated in the
Aviation Safety Training company website.

As most readers will know, the A.D. (air worthiness directive)
significantly limited the hours and the flight envelope of every
T-34 aircraft until they had complied with the testing or
modification requirements of the A.D. These requirements were
designed to protect against another occurrence, such as this.

FAA and NTSB investigators will be trying to determine the cause of
the accident and whether or not the aircraft was being operated in
compliance with the A.D. If it was in compliance with either the
inspection /modification requirements (which does not appear to be
likely at this time), or the flight hour limitation and flight
envelope limitations, then the T-34 fleet can expect more action and
restrictions from the FAA.

We know that the results of the investigation will be of keen
interest to all T-34 owners and operators, so we will keep you
informed. In the mean time, we grieve for the loss of our fellow
T-34 Association member, and friend, Don Wylie, and his
passenger/student, William Eisenhauer Jr.

------------------------------------------------------



Big John > wrote in message >...
> Kevin
>
> Some more data.
>
> Yesterday talk was that mission was "upset' training. I had my doubts
> about that media report since was a flight of two ships. You don't
> need two birds for upset training.
>
> Today they are talking about simulated combat which takes two ships
> and would track with what has been put out.
>
> On front page there is a map of the area and the point of crash is
> marked with a quote:
>
> "One plane crashes after collision, killing two."
>
> There is nothing in the 20 or so column inches on accident that talks
> about a collision.
>
> Data from morning Chronicle
>
> Donald L Wyle 64 was the owner of Air Aces Inc
> William Eisenhauer, Jr, 39, of Centerville, OH was second individual.
> He had been a pilot for 15 years and worked for Airborne Express.
>
> Retired corporate pilot on ground said, "Two planes were spiraling
> around each other, like in mock combat
>
> ----clip----
>
> "The whole wing came off," he said. "I just looked at it in
> disbelief."
>
> The wing that came off, fell about 1/2 mile from rest of wreckage.
> .
> It's a shame. Lots of people got to experience simulated combat type
> flying that they never would have without this program.
>
> My condolences to both families.
>
> Big John
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:04:48 -0500, "Kevin Chandler"
> > wrote:
>
> >Bill Eisenhower was the name of the other pilot. He use to be a member of
> >the club that I am trustee for. Although I did not know the man personally,
> >many members have said that he was a good guy and a great pilot. He got
> >most of his ratings with our club. He was a commercial airline pilot.
> >
> >
> >
> >"Big John" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> 21:00 Tuesday night TV news
> >>
> >> Don Wiley pilot.
> >>
> >> Ohio man second individual (said identified but didn' t give name).
> >>
> >> One wing found a mile from wreckage (image on screen looks like about
> >> 3/5 of wing including tip). Supports structural failure in air as said
> >> other aircraft landed with no damage.
> >>
> >> Other mish mash one hears on TV following an accident.
> >>
> >> Big John
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:12:20 -0600, Big John >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Texas Air Aces, T-34A out of Hooks Airport north of Houston, crashed
> >> >this morning (Tuesday). Both in aircraft deceased.
> >> >
> >> >Flight (two A/C) had not started air combat maneuvers per media and
> >> >did not have a mid air????? if you can believe the media. Other A/C
> >> >retured to Hooks and landed safely.
> >> >
> >> >Sone media talk on tonights news is that wing failed but nothing
> >> >official from TAA or FAA.
> >> >
> >> >Other than deaths, aircraft type and organization have nothing else at
> >> >this time.
> >> >
> >> >If/when more data is released, will post.
> >> >
> >> >Big John
> >>
> >

Rich

Thanks for filling in the skeleton data I gleaned from the local.
paper (who I find so many times wrong).

Safe flyinjg

Big John


On 21 Nov 2003 07:58:52 -0800, (Rich Stowell)
wrote:

>---------------------- Forwarded Message: ---------------------
>From: "T-34 Association, Inc." >
>To:
>Subject: Texas T-34 Crash
>Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:36:04 -0600
>
>Main stream news outlets in the Houston area, excerpted in previous
>posting in this news group, could lead to a couple of misconceptions
>regarding the circumstances of this accident.
>
>1) we understand from informed and knowledgeable sources that the
>accident was NOT the result of a mid air collision. Eyewitness
>reports from a pilot on the ground and examination of both the
>wreckage and the second T-34 give no credence to the theory that one
>T-34 made contact with the other. These sources also indicate that
>the wing separation appears to be very similar to the Sky Warriors
>accident which was ultimately pinned on metal fatigue within the spar
>assembly.
>
>2) the airplane that crashed DID NOT have the "Baron spar"
>modification. In fact, it appears that the airplane's spar had not
>been inspected as required by the A.D. nor had any of the available
>AMOCs been applied. This information was inaccurately stated in the
>Aviation Safety Training company website.
>
>As most readers will know, the A.D. (air worthiness directive)
>significantly limited the hours and the flight envelope of every
>T-34 aircraft until they had complied with the testing or
>modification requirements of the A.D. These requirements were
>designed to protect against another occurrence, such as this.
>
>FAA and NTSB investigators will be trying to determine the cause of
>the accident and whether or not the aircraft was being operated in
>compliance with the A.D. If it was in compliance with either the
>inspection /modification requirements (which does not appear to be
>likely at this time), or the flight hour limitation and flight
>envelope limitations, then the T-34 fleet can expect more action and
>restrictions from the FAA.
>
>We know that the results of the investigation will be of keen
>interest to all T-34 owners and operators, so we will keep you
>informed. In the mean time, we grieve for the loss of our fellow
>T-34 Association member, and friend, Don Wylie, and his
>passenger/student, William Eisenhauer Jr.
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>Big John > wrote in message >...
>> Kevin
>>
>> Some more data.
>>
>> Yesterday talk was that mission was "upset' training. I had my doubts
>> about that media report since was a flight of two ships. You don't
>> need two birds for upset training.
>>
>> Today they are talking about simulated combat which takes two ships
>> and would track with what has been put out.
>>
>> On front page there is a map of the area and the point of crash is
>> marked with a quote:
>>
>> "One plane crashes after collision, killing two."
>>
>> There is nothing in the 20 or so column inches on accident that talks
>> about a collision.
>>
>> Data from morning Chronicle
>>
>> Donald L Wyle 64 was the owner of Air Aces Inc
>> William Eisenhauer, Jr, 39, of Centerville, OH was second individual.
>> He had been a pilot for 15 years and worked for Airborne Express.
>>
>> Retired corporate pilot on ground said, "Two planes were spiraling
>> around each other, like in mock combat
>>
>> ----clip----
>>
>> "The whole wing came off," he said. "I just looked at it in
>> disbelief."
>>
>> The wing that came off, fell about 1/2 mile from rest of wreckage.
>> .
>> It's a shame. Lots of people got to experience simulated combat type
>> flying that they never would have without this program.
>>
>> My condolences to both families.
>>
>> Big John
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:04:48 -0500, "Kevin Chandler"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Bill Eisenhower was the name of the other pilot. He use to be a member of
>> >the club that I am trustee for. Although I did not know the man personally,
>> >many members have said that he was a good guy and a great pilot. He got
>> >most of his ratings with our club. He was a commercial airline pilot.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >"Big John" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> 21:00 Tuesday night TV news
>> >>
>> >> Don Wiley pilot.
>> >>
>> >> Ohio man second individual (said identified but didn' t give name).
>> >>
>> >> One wing found a mile from wreckage (image on screen looks like about
>> >> 3/5 of wing including tip). Supports structural failure in air as said
>> >> other aircraft landed with no damage.
>> >>
>> >> Other mish mash one hears on TV following an accident.
>> >>
>> >> Big John
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:12:20 -0600, Big John >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Texas Air Aces, T-34A out of Hooks Airport north of Houston, crashed
>> >> >this morning (Tuesday). Both in aircraft deceased.
>> >> >
>> >> >Flight (two A/C) had not started air combat maneuvers per media and
>> >> >did not have a mid air????? if you can believe the media. Other A/C
>> >> >retured to Hooks and landed safely.
>> >> >
>> >> >Sone media talk on tonights news is that wing failed but nothing
>> >> >official from TAA or FAA.
>> >> >
>> >> >Other than deaths, aircraft type and organization have nothing else at
>> >> >this time.
>> >> >
>> >> >If/when more data is released, will post.
>> >> >
>> >> >Big John
>> >>
>> >

Thank you for some real data...

I know the Houston media (as is most mainstream media) is woefully
inadequate in accuracy.

I do find it troubling that the accident airplane may have been
non-compliant with the AD with regards to the wing spar.

Dave
KLVJ

Rich Stowell wrote:

> ---------------------- Forwarded Message: ---------------------
> From: "T-34 Association, Inc." >
> To:
> Subject: Texas T-34 Crash
> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:36:04 -0600
>
> Main stream news outlets in the Houston area, excerpted in previous
> posting in this news group, could lead to a couple of misconceptions
> regarding the circumstances of this accident.
>
> 1) we understand from informed and knowledgeable sources that the
> accident was NOT the result of a mid air collision. Eyewitness
> reports from a pilot on the ground and examination of both the
> wreckage and the second T-34 give no credence to the theory that one
> T-34 made contact with the other. These sources also indicate that
> the wing separation appears to be very similar to the Sky Warriors
> accident which was ultimately pinned on metal fatigue within the spar
> assembly.
>
> 2) the airplane that crashed DID NOT have the "Baron spar"
> modification. In fact, it appears that the airplane's spar had not
> been inspected as required by the A.D. nor had any of the available
> AMOCs been applied. This information was inaccurately stated in the
> Aviation Safety Training company website.
>
> As most readers will know, the A.D. (air worthiness directive)
> significantly limited the hours and the flight envelope of every
> T-34 aircraft until they had complied with the testing or
> modification requirements of the A.D. These requirements were
> designed to protect against another occurrence, such as this.
>
> FAA and NTSB investigators will be trying to determine the cause of
> the accident and whether or not the aircraft was being operated in
> compliance with the A.D. If it was in compliance with either the
> inspection /modification requirements (which does not appear to be
> likely at this time), or the flight hour limitation and flight
> envelope limitations, then the T-34 fleet can expect more action and
> restrictions from the FAA.
>
> We know that the results of the investigation will be of keen
> interest to all T-34 owners and operators, so we will keep you
> informed. In the mean time, we grieve for the loss of our fellow
> T-34 Association member, and friend, Don Wylie, and his
> passenger/student, William Eisenhauer Jr.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Big John > wrote in message >...
>
>>Kevin
>>
>>Some more data.
>>
>> Yesterday talk was that mission was "upset' training. I had my doubts
>>about that media report since was a flight of two ships. You don't
>>need two birds for upset training.
>>
>>Today they are talking about simulated combat which takes two ships
>>and would track with what has been put out.
>>
>>On front page there is a map of the area and the point of crash is
>>marked with a quote:
>>
>>"One plane crashes after collision, killing two."
>>
>>There is nothing in the 20 or so column inches on accident that talks
>>about a collision.
>>
>>Data from morning Chronicle
>>
>>Donald L Wyle 64 was the owner of Air Aces Inc
>>William Eisenhauer, Jr, 39, of Centerville, OH was second individual.
>>He had been a pilot for 15 years and worked for Airborne Express.
>>
>>Retired corporate pilot on ground said, "Two planes were spiraling
>>around each other, like in mock combat
>>
>>----clip----
>>
>>"The whole wing came off," he said. "I just looked at it in
>>disbelief."
>>
>>The wing that came off, fell about 1/2 mile from rest of wreckage.
>>.
>>It's a shame. Lots of people got to experience simulated combat type
>>flying that they never would have without this program.
>>
>>My condolences to both families.
>>
>>Big John
>>
>>
>>On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:04:48 -0500, "Kevin Chandler"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bill Eisenhower was the name of the other pilot. He use to be a member of
>>>the club that I am trustee for. Although I did not know the man personally,
>>>many members have said that he was a good guy and a great pilot. He got
>>>most of his ratings with our club. He was a commercial airline pilot.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>21:00 Tuesday night TV news
>>>>
>>>>Don Wiley pilot.
>>>>
>>>>Ohio man second individual (said identified but didn' t give name).
>>>>
>>>>One wing found a mile from wreckage (image on screen looks like about
>>>>3/5 of wing including tip). Supports structural failure in air as said
>>>>other aircraft landed with no damage.
>>>>
>>>>Other mish mash one hears on TV following an accident.
>>>>
>>>>Big John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:12:20 -0600, Big John >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Texas Air Aces, T-34A out of Hooks Airport north of Houston, crashed
>>>>>this morning (Tuesday). Both in aircraft deceased.
>>>>>
>>>>>Flight (two A/C) had not started air combat maneuvers per media and
>>>>>did not have a mid air????? if you can believe the media. Other A/C
>>>>>retured to Hooks and landed safely.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sone media talk on tonights news is that wing failed but nothing
>>>>>official from TAA or FAA.
>>>>>
>>>>>Other than deaths, aircraft type and organization have nothing else at
>>>>>this time.
>>>>>
>>>>>If/when more data is released, will post.
>>>>>
>>>>>Big John
>>>>

-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 5, Issue 47 November 21, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------


SAFETY INSTRUCTOR, STUDENT DIE IN TEXAS CRASH
The owner of Texas-based Aviation Safety Training, 64-year-old Don
Wylie, died Wednesday with his student, William Eisenhauer of
Centerville, Ohio, after a wing separated from the 1965 Beech T-34 the
two men were flying. Wylie and Eisenhauer had just completed a lesson
in the school's upset recovery course and had rejoined with another
T-34 that had given the same instruction to another student. That
aircraft returned safely. A company official said there was no contact
between the two aircraft. The course introduces pilots to accelerated
flight conditions and recovery from those conditions. Another branch
of the company, located at David Wayne Hooks Memorial Airport north of
Houston, is Texas Air Aces, an air combat company that allows
participants to engage in simulated aerial combat using lasers to
determine when the other aircraft is hit. However, the aircraft were
not engaging in air combat maneuvers, a company official said. Wylie,
whose pilot customers included actor Harrison Ford, had given 8,500
hours of instruction since 1990 and flew 251 missions as a fighter
pilot in Vietnam. He earned the Silver Star, Distinguished Flying
Cross, and 16 Air Medals


On 21 Nov 2003 07:58:52 -0800, (Rich Stowell)
wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>---------------------- Forwarded Message: ---------------------
>From: "T-34 Association, Inc." >
>To:
>Subject: Texas T-34 Crash
>Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:36:04 -0600
>
>Main stream news outlets in the Houston area, excerpted in previous
>posting in this news group, could lead to a couple of misconceptions
>regarding the circumstances of this accident.
>
>1) we understand from informed and knowledgeable sources that the
>accident was NOT the result of a mid air collision. Eyewitness
>reports from a pilot on the ground and examination of both the
>wreckage and the second T-34 give no credence to the theory that one
>T-34 made contact with the other. These sources also indicate that
>the wing separation appears to be very similar to the Sky Warriors
>accident which was ultimately pinned on metal fatigue within the spar
>assembly.
>
>2) the airplane that crashed DID NOT have the "Baron spar"
>modification. In fact, it appears that the airplane's spar had not
>been inspected as required by the A.D. nor had any of the available
>AMOCs been applied. This information was inaccurately stated in the
>Aviation Safety Training company website.
>
>As most readers will know, the A.D. (air worthiness directive)
>significantly limited the hours and the flight envelope of every
>T-34 aircraft until they had complied with the testing or
>modification requirements of the A.D. These requirements were
>designed to protect against another occurrence, such as this.
>
>FAA and NTSB investigators will be trying to determine the cause of
>the accident and whether or not the aircraft was being operated in
>compliance with the A.D. If it was in compliance with either the
>inspection /modification requirements (which does not appear to be
>likely at this time), or the flight hour limitation and flight
>envelope limitations, then the T-34 fleet can expect more action and
>restrictions from the FAA.
>
>We know that the results of the investigation will be of keen
>interest to all T-34 owners and operators, so we will keep you
>informed. In the mean time, we grieve for the loss of our fellow
>T-34 Association member, and friend, Don Wylie, and his
>passenger/student, William Eisenhauer Jr.
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>Big John > wrote in message >...
>> Kevin
>>
>> Some more data.
>>
>> Yesterday talk was that mission was "upset' training. I had my doubts
>> about that media report since was a flight of two ships. You don't
>> need two birds for upset training.
>>
>> Today they are talking about simulated combat which takes two ships
>> and would track with what has been put out.
>>
>> On front page there is a map of the area and the point of crash is
>> marked with a quote:
>>
>> "One plane crashes after collision, killing two."
>>
>> There is nothing in the 20 or so column inches on accident that talks
>> about a collision.
>>
>> Data from morning Chronicle
>>
>> Donald L Wyle 64 was the owner of Air Aces Inc
>> William Eisenhauer, Jr, 39, of Centerville, OH was second individual.
>> He had been a pilot for 15 years and worked for Airborne Express.
>>
>> Retired corporate pilot on ground said, "Two planes were spiraling
>> around each other, like in mock combat
>>
>> ----clip----
>>
>> "The whole wing came off," he said. "I just looked at it in
>> disbelief."
>>
>> The wing that came off, fell about 1/2 mile from rest of wreckage.
>> .
>> It's a shame. Lots of people got to experience simulated combat type
>> flying that they never would have without this program.
>>
>> My condolences to both families.
>>
>> Big John
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:04:48 -0500, "Kevin Chandler"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Bill Eisenhower was the name of the other pilot. He use to be a member of
>> >the club that I am trustee for. Although I did not know the man personally,
>> >many members have said that he was a good guy and a great pilot. He got
>> >most of his ratings with our club. He was a commercial airline pilot.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >"Big John" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> 21:00 Tuesday night TV news
>> >>
>> >> Don Wiley pilot.
>> >>
>> >> Ohio man second individual (said identified but didn' t give name).
>> >>
>> >> One wing found a mile from wreckage (image on screen looks like about
>> >> 3/5 of wing including tip). Supports structural failure in air as said
>> >> other aircraft landed with no damage.
>> >>
>> >> Other mish mash one hears on TV following an accident.
>> >>
>> >> Big John
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:12:20 -0600, Big John >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Texas Air Aces, T-34A out of Hooks Airport north of Houston, crashed
>> >> >this morning (Tuesday). Both in aircraft deceased.
>> >> >
>> >> >Flight (two A/C) had not started air combat maneuvers per media and
>> >> >did not have a mid air????? if you can believe the media. Other A/C
>> >> >retured to Hooks and landed safely.
>> >> >
>> >> >Sone media talk on tonights news is that wing failed but nothing
>> >> >official from TAA or FAA.
>> >> >
>> >> >Other than deaths, aircraft type and organization have nothing else at
>> >> >this time.
>> >> >
>> >> >If/when more data is released, will post.
>> >> >
>> >> >Big John
>> >>
>> >

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:48:56 GMT, EDR > wrote in
Message-Id: >:

>In article >, Big John
> wrote:
>
>> Ground witinesses say wing broke and came off (not mid air).
>
>The big question will be: "Did it have the spar mod per the AD?"

That question seems to have been answered.

Another question that no one seems to be asking is, what prevented the
pilot and student from employing their parachutes as would be
expected?

> Another question that no one seems to be asking is, what prevented the
> pilot and student from employing their parachutes as would be
> expected?

When a wing comes off, the resulting centrifigal forces become to great
for a person to claw their way out.

Larry Dighera > wrote

> Another question that no one seems to be asking is, what
> prevented the pilot and student from employing their parachutes
> as would be expected?

Getting out of an airplane with a parachute was difficult enough
that the Navy required us to complete a "bailout" training program
using a T-34 bailout trainer. It consisted of the fuselage and
no wings but a lot of foam stuff to land on. The engine was running.
Not a simple task even considering that the trainer was static.
I have a hard time imagining someone (trained, or not) getting out
of an airplane with one wing missing doing it's death gyrations.
If you track the survivors of damaged aerobatic aircraft, you will
find very few who successfully bailed out even though they were
wearing parachutes. I know of only one airshow pilot in recent years
that completed a successful bailout.
FAR 91.307 is nothing but a big farce. I strap a parachute on my 70
year old neighbor and go out to enjoy some acro in a YAK-52, now we
are perfectly legal, but what are his chances of using that parachute
if required?...I'm not even required to instruct him on the location
of the rip cord! I'm not sure that I could get out of an airplane
gyrating with one wing missing, the forces encountered might even
prevent one from raising his arms to open the canopy.

Bob Moore

In article >,
EDR > wrote:

> > Another question that no one seems to be asking is, what prevented the
> > pilot and student from employing their parachutes as would be
> > expected?
>
> When a wing comes off, the resulting centrifigal forces become to great
> for a person to claw their way out.

Then how the heck did those guys claw their way out of Mustangs, 109s,
Hamps, B-17s, etc, etc.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

Dale wrote:
>
> Then how the heck did those guys claw their way out of Mustangs, 109s,
> Hamps, B-17s, etc, etc.

They didn't get out of them when a wing came off.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:38:22 GMT, EDR > wrote in
Message-Id: >:

>
>> Another question that no one seems to be asking is, what prevented the
>> pilot and student from employing their parachutes as would be
>> expected?
>
>When a wing comes off, the resulting centrifigal forces become to great
>for a person to claw their way out.

Of course we don't know the forces experienced by those pilots during
their final moments with most of one wing missing. But I would guess,
that with only one wing generating lift, the aircraft entered a rapid
roll and dove for the ground. If that was indeed the final flight
mode, and the CG were not centered on the pilots(s), then they would
indeed experience G forces.

In my estimation, it is likely the pilot(s) were positioned above the
CG, and would have experienced centrifugal force in the direction
toward the canopy. Perhaps the severed portion of the wing hit the
cabin when it separated and frustrated their egress.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:03:35 GMT, Robert Moore
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>Larry Dighera > wrote
>
>> Another question that no one seems to be asking is, what
>> prevented the pilot and student from employing their parachutes
>> as would be expected?
>
>Getting out of an airplane with a parachute was difficult enough
>that the Navy required us to complete a "bailout" training program
>using a T-34 bailout trainer. It consisted of the fuselage and
>no wings but a lot of foam stuff to land on. The engine was running.
>Not a simple task even considering that the trainer was static.

In your experience, specifically what did you find hindered your
egress?

>I have a hard time imagining someone (trained, or not) getting out
>of an airplane with one wing missing doing it's death gyrations.

Thankfully, I have no firsthand experience bailing out of a damaged
aircraft, but I can imagine the difficulty accomplishing egress under
hi-g.

>If you track the survivors of damaged aerobatic aircraft, you will
>find very few who successfully bailed out even though they were
>wearing parachutes.

I'm having difficulty parsing that sentence. Are you saying those
survivors rode their damaged aerobatic aircraft to the ground, because
they couldn't manage egress, and yet they survived?! Or are you
saying, that many survivors of damaged aerobatic aircraft successfully
bailed out without waring parachutes? :-)

>I know of only one airshow pilot in recent years
>that completed a successful bailout.

How many do you know of that were unsuccessful?

>FAR 91.307 is nothing but a big farce. I strap a parachute on my 70
>year old neighbor and go out to enjoy some acro in a YAK-52, now we
>are perfectly legal, but what are his chances of using that parachute
>if required?...I'm not even required to instruct him on the location
>of the rip cord!

I have no idea what his chances might be.

>I'm not sure that I could get out of an airplane
>gyrating with one wing missing, the forces encountered might even
>prevent one from raising his arms to open the canopy.

With only one wing generating lift, I would expect the aircraft to
roll rapidly (something like a snap roll) in the direction of the
missing wing in a near vertical, nose-down attitude. If the pilot
were positioned above the CG, it would seem that centrifugal force
would act to force him toward the canopy. However, if the roll was
not occurring centered on the longitudinal axis (as in a barrel roll),
that wouldn't be the case. It's difficult to predict.

In article >, Larry Dighera
> wrote:

> In my estimation, it is likely the pilot(s) were positioned above the
> CG, and would have experienced centrifugal force in the direction
> toward the canopy. Perhaps the severed portion of the wing hit the
> cabin when it separated and frustrated their egress.

Why do you think the force vector is vertical and not lateral?

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:15:03 GMT, EDR > wrote in
Message-Id: >:

>In article >, Larry Dighera
> wrote:
>
>> In my estimation, it is likely the pilot(s) were positioned above the
>> CG, and would have experienced centrifugal force in the direction
>> toward the canopy. Perhaps the severed portion of the wing hit the
>> cabin when it separated and frustrated their egress.
>
>Why do you think the force vector is vertical and not lateral?

I wouldn't expect the force vector to be acting in a vertical (as in
away from the Earth) direction, but in a direction away from the axis
of the roll. If the roll were centered on the aircraft's longitudinal
axis (as a snap roll is) and the pilot were positioned off that axis
toward the canopy, I would expect the force to act toward the canopy
if/when it stabilized.

The twisting moment of the roll might have initially induced some
lateral deflection of the victor, but once (if) it stabilized, there
would no longer be any lateral acceleration resulting from the roll,
only the centrifugal force would remain.

This is difficult to discuss without graphics.

In article >, Larry Dighera
> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:15:03 GMT, EDR > wrote in
> Message-Id: >:
>
> >In article >, Larry Dighera
> > wrote:
> >
> >> In my estimation, it is likely the pilot(s) were positioned above the
> >> CG, and would have experienced centrifugal force in the direction
> >> toward the canopy. Perhaps the severed portion of the wing hit the
> >> cabin when it separated and frustrated their egress.
> >
> >Why do you think the force vector is vertical and not lateral?
>
> I wouldn't expect the force vector to be acting in a vertical (as in
> away from the Earth) direction, but in a direction away from the axis
> of the roll. If the roll were centered on the aircraft's longitudinal
> axis (as a snap roll is) and the pilot were positioned off that axis
> toward the canopy, I would expect the force to act toward the canopy
> if/when it stabilized.
>
> The twisting moment of the roll might have initially induced some
> lateral deflection of the victor, but once (if) it stabilized, there
> would no longer be any lateral acceleration resulting from the roll,
> only the centrifugal force would remain.
>
> This is difficult to discuss without graphics.

You've never flown aerobatics, have you?

In article >,
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:

> Dale wrote:
> >
> > Then how the heck did those guys claw their way out of Mustangs, 109s,
> > Hamps, B-17s, etc, etc.
>
> They didn't get out of them when a wing came off.

Take a look at my websight. There is a photo of two guys that were
waist-gunners on the same B-24. It was shot down, they were pinned in
the back until the wing came off and they were able to get out. Both
very much alive. They aren't the only guys I've talked to that managed
to get out of B-17s or B-24s with wings, tails etc missing. In fact one
of the gentlemen was in the tail of a B-17 that was cut off thru the
waist section. It took him a while but he managed to get out as well.

I realize there were times when guys were not able to exit but having
parts missing from the airplane, even really big parts, doesn' t mean
you won't be able to bailout.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

In article >, Dale
> wrote:

> In article >,
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:
>
> > Dale wrote:
> > >
> > > Then how the heck did those guys claw their way out of Mustangs, 109s,
> > > Hamps, B-17s, etc, etc.
> >
> > They didn't get out of them when a wing came off.
>
> Take a look at my websight. There is a photo of two guys that were
> waist-gunners on the same B-24. It was shot down, they were pinned in
> the back until the wing came off and they were able to get out. Both
> very much alive. They aren't the only guys I've talked to that managed
> to get out of B-17s or B-24s with wings, tails etc missing. In fact one
> of the gentlemen was in the tail of a B-17 that was cut off thru the
> waist section. It took him a while but he managed to get out as well.
>
> I realize there were times when guys were not able to exit but having
> parts missing from the airplane, even really big parts, doesn' t mean
> you won't be able to bailout.

Given enough altitude, one could possibly work ones way out.
WWII bombers cruised in the twenty-something altitudes, giving the
surviving crew time to possibly affect an escape.
The T-34 was at 4,000 (IIRCC) when the mishap occurred.
Big difference in time available.

Larry Dighera wrote

> In your experience, specifically what did you find hindered your
> egress?

Have you ever stood-up in a convertable doing 125 mph?
The seat-pack parachute didn't help either.

>>If you track the survivors of damaged aerobatic aircraft, you
>>will find very few who successfully bailed out even though they
>>were wearing parachutes.

Poorly worded, should have said "occupants" instead of "survivors".

> How many do you know of that were unsuccessful?

Well, there's the other T-34, the Pitts Special in Pittsburg a few
years back, and an Edge 540 in CA back in 2001.

Bob Moore

Larry

Been a long time since I flew the '34 so can't remember how the canopy
worked. Know it rolled back and forth in a track. Can't remember if
there was a means of jettisoning the canopy with one lever?? Possibly
Robert who flew bird in Navy can refresh how the canopy worked normal
and in emergency?

If canopy had to be rolled back in track, then after a wing departed
the bird probably pulled both negative and positive G's making it very
difficult to roll the canopy open to get out even if the harness was
very tight to keep one from being thrown around roughly?

Assuming they were not injured when wing broke off and canopy still
operated in track, due to gyrations I'd put the odds of getting out as
1 in 250-500.

Any one getting out of an accident like this would end up "poster boy
for miracles".

In layman's terms "They didn't have a chance".

Big John


On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:24:50 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:48:56 GMT, EDR > wrote in
>Message-Id: >:
>
>>In article >, Big John
> wrote:
>>
>>> Ground witinesses say wing broke and came off (not mid air).
>>
>>The big question will be: "Did it have the spar mod per the AD?"
>
>That question seems to have been answered.
>
>Another question that no one seems to be asking is, what prevented the
>pilot and student from employing their parachutes as would be
>expected?
>

In article >,
EDR > wrote:


> Given enough altitude, one could possibly work ones way out.
> WWII bombers cruised in the twenty-something altitudes, giving the
> surviving crew time to possibly affect an escape.
> The T-34 was at 4,000 (IIRCC) when the mishap occurred.
> Big difference in time available.

I agree...time would be a factor. From 4000' you might have 15 seconds.
I was disputing the posters statement that there was no chance if a wing
came off.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:48:56 GMT, EDR > wrote in
> Message-Id: >:
>
> >In article >, Big John
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Ground witinesses say wing broke and came off (not mid air).
> >
> >The big question will be: "Did it have the spar mod per the AD?"
>
> That question seems to have been answered.
>
> Another question that no one seems to be asking is, what prevented the
> pilot and student from employing their parachutes as would be
> expected?
>
>

In the T-34 that had a wing failure near Atlanta, the wing failed upward,
folded over and struck the canopy. IF the pilots survived that, the canopy
was probably uselessly jammed anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if the same
thing happened in the recent crash.

KB

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:56:28 GMT, EDR > wrote in
Message-Id: >:

>You've never flown aerobatics, have you?

I've only a couple of hours of aerobatic instruction.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:55:22 GMT, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:48:56 GMT, EDR > wrote in
>> Message-Id: >:
>>
>> >In article >, Big John
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ground witinesses say wing broke and came off (not mid air).
>> >
>> >The big question will be: "Did it have the spar mod per the AD?"
>>
>> That question seems to have been answered.
>>
>> Another question that no one seems to be asking is, what prevented the
>> pilot and student from employing their parachutes as would be
>> expected?
>>
>>
>
>In the T-34 that had a wing failure near Atlanta, the wing failed upward,
>folded over and struck the canopy. IF the pilots survived that, the canopy
>was probably uselessly jammed anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if the same
>thing happened in the recent crash.

Thanks for the data point. If that occurred, it would explain a lot.

In article >, Larry Dighera
> wrote:

> >You've never flown aerobatics, have you?
>
> I've only a couple of hours of aerobatic instruction.

Think combined spin and roll at high rate (greater than 300 degrees per
second). The forces exerted are dynamic, they are constantly changing
in direction and magnitude. In the spin, the nose is pitching up and
down while the yaw and roll components vary; the loss of a wing or
portion of a wing also impart their own yaw/pitch/roll components. The
amplitudes of each component are constantly varying.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:30:06 GMT, EDR > wrote in
Message-Id: >:

>In article >, Larry Dighera
> wrote:
>
>> >You've never flown aerobatics, have you?
>>
>> I've only a couple of hours of aerobatic instruction.
>
>Think combined spin and roll at high rate (greater than 300 degrees per
>second). The forces exerted are dynamic, they are constantly changing
>in direction and magnitude. In the spin, the nose is pitching up and
>down while the yaw and roll components vary; the loss of a wing or
>portion of a wing also impart their own yaw/pitch/roll components. The
>amplitudes of each component are constantly varying.

Are you relating a firsthand experience? Or have you got a cite?

I don't doubt that such circumstances, and others, are possible and
occur, but my expectation would be that in the majority of cases,
egress would be a real possibility.

The fact that the wing failure and separation occurred at ~4,000',
would provide only about 17 seconds before impact at a terminal
velocity of 160 mph if the surface were at sea level. I would expect,
that's not much time in such a situation.

In article >, Larry Dighera
> wrote:

> Are you relating a firsthand experience? Or have you got a cite?

I have done rolls (aileron and snap), spins, hammerheads, loops.

Try it yourself. Suspend a wet sponge attached to a string from the top
of your cockpit. Perform a series of rapid aileron rolls.
Which way does the sponge move?
Does it stay in one place?
Repeat while performing a multiturn upright spin, adding power once the
spin has developed.
Repeat while performing a multiturn inverted spin, again adding power
once the spin has developed.

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:39:25 GMT, EDR > wrote in
Message-Id: >:

>In article >, Larry Dighera
> wrote:
>
>> Are you relating a firsthand experience? Or have you got a cite?
>
>I have done rolls (aileron and snap), spins, hammerheads, loops.

As have I.

So you have no firsthand experience with a wing separation, but you
presume to lecture with authority on that subject?

>Try it yourself. Suspend a wet sponge attached to a string from the top
>of your cockpit. Perform a series of rapid aileron rolls.

Why? Do you think an aileron roll is one of the flight modes that
occurs as a result of wing separation? I would expect a the result to
more resemble a snap roll.

>Which way does the sponge move?
>Does it stay in one place?

The fact that a pilot experiences anomalous G loads during aerobatic
maneuvers is well accepted; there's no necessity for empirical
confirmation IMO.

>Repeat while performing a multiturn upright spin, adding power once the
>spin has developed.

This is a very stable maneuver. There should be no real difficulty
exiting the aircraft in this configuration IMO.

>Repeat while performing a multiturn inverted spin, again adding power
>once the spin has developed.

Um... No thanks. A spin has no relevancy to the topic IMO.