ANN coverage of the P-51 landing accident at OSH...

[Blueskies]

What a shame...pretty amazing set of pictures...

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=e0b8b45d-175d-47fe-a063-7ad4367b4d28&

http://tinyurl.com/ypxybw




(I know many folks thoughts about this web site, so please, no flames)

[[email protected]]

This is a longer version of the Aeronews TV Network-obtained video of the
crash, it shows a bit more of the final approach before the accident than
the version posted at Aero-news' own website. I'm still pretty much
convinced that the two Mustang pilots weren't trying to land in formation,
but rather just didn't see each other until too late. We'll have to see what
conclusions the NTSB come up with of course. Take a look and see what you
think...

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=3692

Scott Wilson

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

The answer lies in the tower tape.
Dudley Henriques

wrote:
> This is a longer version of the Aeronews TV Network-obtained video of the
> crash, it shows a bit more of the final approach before the accident than
> the version posted at Aero-news' own website. I'm still pretty much
> convinced that the two Mustang pilots weren't trying to land in formation,
> but rather just didn't see each other until too late. We'll have to see what
> conclusions the NTSB come up with of course. Take a look and see what you
> think...
>
> http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=3692
>
> Scott Wilson

[[email protected]]

On 30-Jul-2007, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> The answer lies in the tower tape.
> Dudley Henriques




The tower isn't in control during the show. The control is given over to the
airshow's Air Boss using 133.85 (tower freqs were 118.5 and 126.6). He
cleared all of the racers to land, and as I said before, after the Air Boss
gave them all a blanket clearance to land, I only recall hearing Beck in
Precious Metal making a position announcement, "Precious Metal, one mile
final". I'm pretty certain that Chris Odegaard in "Stang" never said a word.
I would guess the tower or EAA would be recording all of the radio traffic
on 133.85, but I don't know that for a fact. We'll see what the NTSB report
says when it comes out.
Scott Wilson

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On 30-Jul-2007, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> The answer lies in the tower tape.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
>
>
> The tower isn't in control during the show. The control is given over to the
> airshow's Air Boss using 133.85 (tower freqs were 118.5 and 126.6). He
> cleared all of the racers to land, and as I said before, after the Air Boss
> gave them all a blanket clearance to land, I only recall hearing Beck in
> Precious Metal making a position announcement, "Precious Metal, one mile
> final". I'm pretty certain that Chris Odegaard in "Stang" never said a word.
> I would guess the tower or EAA would be recording all of the radio traffic
> on 133.85, but I don't know that for a fact. We'll see what the NTSB report
> says when it comes out.
> Scott Wilson

When I say the tower tape, I mean the official tape in play at the time
of the landing, be that source the FAA tower or a com trailer such as
used by Oshkosh, the Thunderbirds, or the Blue Angels.

You are right. The NTSB report will reflect exactly what transpired
during the approach.
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

Here's a good set of photos of the accident showing a different perspective
than the video we've seen.
Scott Wilson

http://flickr.com/photos/lscan/sets/72157601065523576/

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote in message
. net...
> Here's a good set of photos of the accident showing a different
> perspective
> than the video we've seen.
> Scott Wilson
>
> http://flickr.com/photos/lscan/sets/72157601065523576/

Picture number two looks like a clear line of site, to me.
--
Jim in NC

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

wrote:
> Here's a good set of photos of the accident showing a different perspective
> than the video we've seen.

Check out the prop damage on the blue turtle deck.

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
. net...
> Here's a good set of photos of the accident showing a different
perspective
> than the video we've seen.
> Scott Wilson
>
> http://flickr.com/photos/lscan/sets/72157601065523576/

In the video, it really looked like the situation had already deteriorated
more than a quarter mile out, and then it just continued to get worse. (And
the assumptions which I initially made are now in serious doubt.)

That further amplifies a question that I have for Dudley:

You mentioned a distinction military and civilain pilots; and I can think of
several possible reasons: the civilians pilots are usually older, less
experienced in type, and formation flying is not part of their primary
occupation--but I suspect that there is something even more basic that I am
leaving out.

Peter

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> > wrote in message
> . net...
>> Here's a good set of photos of the accident showing a different
> perspective
>> than the video we've seen.
>> Scott Wilson
>>
>> http://flickr.com/photos/lscan/sets/72157601065523576/
>
> In the video, it really looked like the situation had already deteriorated
> more than a quarter mile out, and then it just continued to get worse. (And
> the assumptions which I initially made are now in serious doubt.)
>
> That further amplifies a question that I have for Dudley:
>
> You mentioned a distinction military and civilain pilots; and I can think of
> several possible reasons: the civilians pilots are usually older, less
> experienced in type, and formation flying is not part of their primary
> occupation--but I suspect that there is something even more basic that I am
> leaving out.
>
> Peter
>
>

Yes. It's so basic it has a tendency to lose itself in analysis.
The military was just as aware as everyone else about the hazzards
associated with section landings. Putting multiple airplanes on the same
runway landing at the same time has obvious risks. If lead for example
blows a tire on the side the trailer is landing on, the resulting swerve
could be a real issue. Judgment and unforseen incursions on the runway
are also considerations. The list of possible issues is indeed long and
filled with pot holes that could spoil your day.
The military however has a problem we as civilians don't have. They have
a situation that involves time. In combat, there is always the issue
of getting multiple aircraft on the ground quickly and turned around,
rearmed and refueled and back into the air again. Also, there is the
issue of vulnerability. Fighters slowed down to pattern speeds and dirty
are duck soup for attacking enemy fighters.
For the reasons I've stated above, the 360 overhead approach was
initiated by the military. The objective of this type of approach is to
space close in and tight, keep the pattern speeds up, and get the birds
down as quickly as possible. Section landings became an integral part of
this scenario and was accepted and is accepted even today as a
reasonable risk factor considering extensive flight training and
awareness of the pilots doing this work.
It is worthy of note that even in the military, landing prop tailwheel
fighters this way was considered a far greater risk factor than landing
high performance nose wheel jet fighters; the reason being the loss of
visual cues for the wingman landing next to his element lead.
Now enter civilians with a few bucks and flying P51 Mustangs and you
have a situation where the time factor is no longer present in the
section landing equation. The powers that be who set up training
schedules for these pilots in these aircraft know quite well the dangers
of section landings in prop fighters. For this reason, organizations
like Warbirds of America and EAA and the T34 Formation Training Syllabus
specifically note that section landings in P51's are NOT considered to
be safe enough to warrant the risk factor.
So this is basically how it works. If you own a P51 and you have taken
the trouble to seek out and take the suggested training given by people
who know what they are doing, you don't attempt section landings in P51
aircraft.
There is no law however that MAKES the P51 owner attend these classes.
The result I believe, we have seen with this latest accident at Oshkosh.
Both of these pilots were good sticks in these airplanes. It saddens me
to know that this accident was so damn preventable simply by following
basic information and training readily available for pilots flying P51
Mustangs, and in play as we speak.
Dudley Henriques

[Peter Dohm]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> > In the video, it really looked like the situation had already
deteriorated
> > more than a quarter mile out, and then it just continued to get worse.
(And
> > the assumptions which I initially made are now in serious doubt.)
> >
> > That further amplifies a question that I have for Dudley:
> >
> > You mentioned a distinction military and civilain pilots; and I can
think of
> > several possible reasons: the civilians pilots are usually older, less
> > experienced in type, and formation flying is not part of their primary
> > occupation--but I suspect that there is something even more basic that I
am
> > leaving out.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
>
> Yes. It's so basic it has a tendency to lose itself in analysis.
> The military was just as aware as everyone else about the hazzards
> associated with section landings. Putting multiple airplanes on the same
> runway landing at the same time has obvious risks. If lead for example
> blows a tire on the side the trailer is landing on, the resulting swerve
> could be a real issue. Judgment and unforseen incursions on the runway
> are also considerations. The list of possible issues is indeed long and
> filled with pot holes that could spoil your day.
> The military however has a problem we as civilians don't have. They have
> a situation that involves time. In combat, there is always the issue
> of getting multiple aircraft on the ground quickly and turned around,
> rearmed and refueled and back into the air again. Also, there is the
> issue of vulnerability. Fighters slowed down to pattern speeds and dirty
> are duck soup for attacking enemy fighters.
> For the reasons I've stated above, the 360 overhead approach was
> initiated by the military. The objective of this type of approach is to
> space close in and tight, keep the pattern speeds up, and get the birds
> down as quickly as possible. Section landings became an integral part of
> this scenario and was accepted and is accepted even today as a
> reasonable risk factor considering extensive flight training and
> awareness of the pilots doing this work.
> It is worthy of note that even in the military, landing prop tailwheel
> fighters this way was considered a far greater risk factor than landing
> high performance nose wheel jet fighters; the reason being the loss of
> visual cues for the wingman landing next to his element lead.
> Now enter civilians with a few bucks and flying P51 Mustangs and you
> have a situation where the time factor is no longer present in the
> section landing equation. The powers that be who set up training
> schedules for these pilots in these aircraft know quite well the dangers
> of section landings in prop fighters. For this reason, organizations
> like Warbirds of America and EAA and the T34 Formation Training Syllabus
> specifically note that section landings in P51's are NOT considered to
> be safe enough to warrant the risk factor.
> So this is basically how it works. If you own a P51 and you have taken
> the trouble to seek out and take the suggested training given by people
> who know what they are doing, you don't attempt section landings in P51
> aircraft.
> There is no law however that MAKES the P51 owner attend these classes.
> The result I believe, we have seen with this latest accident at Oshkosh.
> Both of these pilots were good sticks in these airplanes. It saddens me
> to know that this accident was so damn preventable simply by following
> basic information and training readily available for pilots flying P51
> Mustangs, and in play as we speak.
> Dudley Henriques

That's almost the proverbial "elephant in the room" which has been present
so long that it seems to dissappear. I did not even consider the need to
get assets quickly inside a ground defense perimeter and on the ground with
a minimun loss of speed; and then, if necessary, relaunch an air defense as
rapidly as possible.

Thanks again for the much needed observations.

Peter

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

My pleasure. Sorry it has to be under such bad circumstances.
DH


Peter Dohm wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>> In the video, it really looked like the situation had already
> deteriorated
>>> more than a quarter mile out, and then it just continued to get worse.
> (And
>>> the assumptions which I initially made are now in serious doubt.)
>>>
>>> That further amplifies a question that I have for Dudley:
>>>
>>> You mentioned a distinction military and civilain pilots; and I can
> think of
>>> several possible reasons: the civilians pilots are usually older, less
>>> experienced in type, and formation flying is not part of their primary
>>> occupation--but I suspect that there is something even more basic that I
> am
>>> leaving out.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>> Yes. It's so basic it has a tendency to lose itself in analysis.
>> The military was just as aware as everyone else about the hazzards
>> associated with section landings. Putting multiple airplanes on the same
>> runway landing at the same time has obvious risks. If lead for example
>> blows a tire on the side the trailer is landing on, the resulting swerve
>> could be a real issue. Judgment and unforseen incursions on the runway
>> are also considerations. The list of possible issues is indeed long and
>> filled with pot holes that could spoil your day.
>> The military however has a problem we as civilians don't have. They have
>> a situation that involves time. In combat, there is always the issue
>> of getting multiple aircraft on the ground quickly and turned around,
>> rearmed and refueled and back into the air again. Also, there is the
>> issue of vulnerability. Fighters slowed down to pattern speeds and dirty
>> are duck soup for attacking enemy fighters.
>> For the reasons I've stated above, the 360 overhead approach was
>> initiated by the military. The objective of this type of approach is to
>> space close in and tight, keep the pattern speeds up, and get the birds
>> down as quickly as possible. Section landings became an integral part of
>> this scenario and was accepted and is accepted even today as a
>> reasonable risk factor considering extensive flight training and
>> awareness of the pilots doing this work.
>> It is worthy of note that even in the military, landing prop tailwheel
>> fighters this way was considered a far greater risk factor than landing
>> high performance nose wheel jet fighters; the reason being the loss of
>> visual cues for the wingman landing next to his element lead.
>> Now enter civilians with a few bucks and flying P51 Mustangs and you
>> have a situation where the time factor is no longer present in the
>> section landing equation. The powers that be who set up training
>> schedules for these pilots in these aircraft know quite well the dangers
>> of section landings in prop fighters. For this reason, organizations
>> like Warbirds of America and EAA and the T34 Formation Training Syllabus
>> specifically note that section landings in P51's are NOT considered to
>> be safe enough to warrant the risk factor.
>> So this is basically how it works. If you own a P51 and you have taken
>> the trouble to seek out and take the suggested training given by people
>> who know what they are doing, you don't attempt section landings in P51
>> aircraft.
>> There is no law however that MAKES the P51 owner attend these classes.
>> The result I believe, we have seen with this latest accident at Oshkosh.
>> Both of these pilots were good sticks in these airplanes. It saddens me
>> to know that this accident was so damn preventable simply by following
>> basic information and training readily available for pilots flying P51
>> Mustangs, and in play as we speak.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> That's almost the proverbial "elephant in the room" which has been present
> so long that it seems to dissappear. I did not even consider the need to
> get assets quickly inside a ground defense perimeter and on the ground with
> a minimun loss of speed; and then, if necessary, relaunch an air defense as
> rapidly as possible.
>
> Thanks again for the much needed observations.
>
> Peter
>
>
>