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

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

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/

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

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.

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

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

"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

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

Dudley

Our pilots used to catch the German fighters (and jets) in pattern and
run their score up. Shooting fish in a barrel.

Never flew an overhead pattern until after the War that I can
remember.

The pitch off the deck was the procedure used until after War and the
accident rate doing that became excessive and they changed to the
overhead.

An off the deck pitch let you make a touch down after about only 15
seconds from the pitch

350 mph on approach. Throttle idle on pitch and pull up TIGHT in turn
to bleed off airspeed. After 180 degrees of climbing turn your
airspeed was down to where you could put down full flaps and drop
gear, continuing the last 180 degrees of turn to align with runway and
then touch down at normal touch down speed.

A pitch up almost killed me. Came back to base just after take off
with a leaking fuel cap. Made the normal tight pitch up (forgot I was
heavy with fuel) and bird stalled in last 90 degrees of turn. I rudder
walked the bird down and hit on right main gear and right aileron.
Took around and was much more cautious next landing. If I haven't been
a good and LUCKY pilot would not be here today (

Nice dry day here in Houston today.

Big John
*******************************************


On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:24:02 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:



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

Hi John;

That approach is what we called a 360 Tactical overhead approach. I used
a variation of it as a finishing touch on my demonstration in the 51 and
also on arrival at a show site weather and ATC permitting :-)
I used 300 at 46 and 27 and pitched off the deck into a straight 45
climb line roll set. Neutralizing, I immediately initiated a 270 degree
roll to the opposite side of the downwind leg (pattern left/roll right)
I stopped the roll at 270 by stomping on the top rudder and holding in
firm forward stick. This stopped the airplane at the second knife edge
solidly. At that point I blended in back pressure using top rudder to
hold nose position through the transition from climbing knife edge into
the turn to downwind at 1500 feet AGL. The rest was your standard
circling close in turning approach in the 51 keeping the power up so as
not to foul the plugs.
If this approach was done just right, it was beautiful to watch from the
ground and was extremely good for maintaining visual cues in the cockpit
for me. Once I had things slowed down to 160 and had 20 degrees of flap
and the gear lights on the bird, the rest was just keeping it in close
and turning milking in the flaps until full down on final.
Over the fence at 120 or a bit less and tail low on the mains.
The main thing crowds liked with this approach aside from the roll was
the sound you always got with the 51 low, fast, and at METO.
Dudley Henriques

Big John wrote:
Dudley

Our pilots used to catch the German fighters (and jets) in pattern and
run their score up. Shooting fish in a barrel.

Never flew an overhead pattern until after the War that I can
remember.

The pitch off the deck was the procedure used until after War and the
accident rate doing that became excessive and they changed to the
overhead.

An off the deck pitch let you make a touch down after about only 15
seconds from the pitch

350 mph on approach. Throttle idle on pitch and pull up TIGHT in turn
to bleed off airspeed. After 180 degrees of climbing turn your
airspeed was down to where you could put down full flaps and drop
gear, continuing the last 180 degrees of turn to align with runway and
then touch down at normal touch down speed.

A pitch up almost killed me. Came back to base just after take off
with a leaking fuel cap. Made the normal tight pitch up (forgot I was
heavy with fuel) and bird stalled in last 90 degrees of turn. I rudder
walked the bird down and hit on right main gear and right aileron.
Took around and was much more cautious next landing. If I haven't been
a good and LUCKY pilot would not be here today (

Nice dry day here in Houston today.

Big John
*******************************************


On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:24:02 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:


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