Aerobatic crash at dayton airshow

I shouldn't have watched the video...just so awful. I really enjoyed them at SnF this past year. I really have no words.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
As for your assertion, I disagree. It most certainly WAS a loss of situational awareness...other causes could be a mechanical failure with the airplane or the pilot suddenly suffered a physical ailment. I'm sure an investigation will reveal if either of those is the case.
Click to expand...

Are you using "situational awareness" to mean anything not mechanically related? If not, I'd love to hear your analysis.
 
RIP.
Yes, hard to watch.

It looked like on the roll to inverted, he lost the airshow line, realized it and turned away from the crowd, still losing altitude. Inverted stall or something, lost control during the maneuver away from the spectators.
 
jesse said:
Perhaps relevant for those of us that do low level inverted flight with wing walkers but that's about it. Knowing our community, I can tell you, there are very few of us in that category.
Click to expand...

I slightly agree with you, but I wouldn't limit it to flight with wing walkers.

I think that (along with the video a few years ago of the T-6 barrel roll into the drink off the coast of FL) should be required viewing for anyone who might consider doing low level aerobatics either for fun or for a profession.

The rest of us....not so much.
 
TexasPilot71 said:
Low and slow has consequences. Doesn't matter if you're flying a jet, helicopter, blimp, balloon, or a Cub, whether you're inverted or upright, whether you have two wings or one; low and slow has deadly consequences if not performed properly. That's a lesson that must be seared in our memory. Visually or cognitively. Whatever it takes. That was my point. There is no reset button in aviation. We get ONE shot.
Click to expand...

I think that is wildly overstating the case. Never had a go-around? Or a stall go wrong? There are high risk activities and there are low-risk activities in aviation. You can add a margin of safety (altitude, parachute, training) to the high-risk ones if you choose to engage in them. This performance is high risk with minimal, if any, margin.
 
alfadog said:
I think that is wildly overstating the case.
Click to expand...

Just saying that if we crash (hard) it will only happen once. There is no reset button. I want as much information as I can get to sear those consequences to my mind. Reading a book or hearing it from an instructor is one thing. A video is more sobering.
 
It don't take me all day to look at a horseshoe.

TexasPilot71 said:
Just saying that if we crash (hard) it will only happen once. There is no reset button. I want as much information as I can get to sear those consequences to my mind. Reading a book or hearing it from an instructor is one thing. A video is more sobering.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
It don't take me all day to look at a horseshoe.
Click to expand...

Only took 40 seconds to watch a video.

It is very sad but I see no reason to not watch it. Maybe im just less affected by this stuff. Anyway the choice of whether or not to watch something like this is pretty personal and cant be answered by a "blanket".
 
Sad indeed!

I can't help but think of all the other performers who have lost their lives doing low level aerobatics. Such a small margin of error is permitted.

Thoughts and prayers to the families!
 
wabower said:
I didn't watch it and won't. Ditto many of the other shocking tragedies on the news. I'm terribly sorry for any loss of life or severe injury but watching it doesn't help them or me.
Click to expand...

I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with you.

RIP to those brave souls.
 
TexasPilot71 said:
Hard to judge between the two videos, but it sure looked like in the successful video that the aircraft had much more ground speed speed. Assuming headwinds were relatively similar, I say stall.
Click to expand...
Groundspeed wouldn't matter, except maybe in a takeoff/landing accident. In a crash like this, it only changes the amount of energy involved when contact is made with the surface.
The main difference I see between the two clips is altitude at the point the airplane is rolled back to level. In the "good" clip, the pilot is seeing some decent climb while still inverted, and doesn't roll out until there's a lot more altitude to work with.
It looks like the roll back just did not work the last time, but at the altitude shown in the earlier clip, there may have been time to recover, at least to the point where the crash may have been survivable.
Maybe it wouldn't climb inverted that time for some reason, and yes, it sure looks like he ran out of airspeed during that roll... but whatever the case, it goes to show that some stunts shouldn't be attempted that low. He gave himself zero wiggle room on that pass. :nonod:
 
This video is bad news, man. Truly, my heart goes out to the victims, their families, and the spectators who were witnesses to such a tragedy.

Was the low altitude a mistake? I don't mean to be insensitive but why exactly is this necessary? Do air shows have to be deaf defying to be interesting? I've been to one airshow and I couldn't even enjoy myself just because of the fear that my kid could be traumatized by something like this.
 
LandSickness said:
I don't mean to be insensitive but why exactly is this necessary? Do air shows have to be deaf defying to be interesting? I've been to one airshow and I couldn't even enjoy myself just because of the fear that my kid could be traumatized by something like this.
Click to expand...
The problem is that some people think the low altitude is necessary to put on a good show.

The question becomes one of is it really worth the risk? I don't think so. I honestly wouldn't be suprised if the FAA is right now as we speak re-thinking low altitude waivers. The problem is that the average person in the public only pays attention or notices airshows when something like this happens and gets plastered all over the news/web. Sure as hell doesn't help GA.
 
Performing in air shows is DANGEROUS. The number of performers who have perished in this activity is startlingly large.

I recall watching Matt Younkin fly his Beech 18 at SNF a couple years ago, several POA inmates were present (it was his father's aircraft, but his dad was too dead to fly it). During one roll we thought his wind tip was going to hit, it was that close.

RIP to the pilots. I'm just glad they could go out doing what they loved without having someone tell them they couldn't.
 
steingar said:
RIP to the pilots. I'm just glad they could go out doing what they loved without having someone tell them they couldn't.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

As I get older I appreciate more the spirit adventure. Looking back I can remember some adrenaline and sweat charged flights that left me feeling a little more alive than I was when I launched. Had I perished on any of those missions I can honestly say it would have been worth it.
 
I've seen two mentioned performers at air shows several times. Sorry to see them go. I've also lost an acquaintance of mine to an air show crash.
 
I think the control stick broke. Pushing hard forward in 450HP Stearman would be the time it would probably break, if it was cracked. Just doesn't look like a stall to me.
 
hkyplr18 said:
I think the control stick broke. Pushing hard forward in 450HP Stearman would be the time it would probably break, if it was cracked. Just doesn't look like a stall to me.
Click to expand...

It does appear like either the connection to the elevator broke or it was binding. Just didn't seem like he could get enough forward elevator and then tried to recover and roll out at low altitude. RIP.
 
Looks like a Monday morning quarterbacking lately. I think I'll quit reading this thread. Let's wait for the authorities to tell us what they think!
 
First, my sincere condolences to the family and friends of these two performers. They appear to enter the manuver pretty slow, should be around 110mph minimum, but looking at the videos its way slower IMOP. Stearman already mushing at .32sec, you can see "up" elevator (in relation to being inverted) to arrest the mush, impending stall and then sharp "right" wing drop,(stall roll usually occurs in the direction of any rudder input present, and her presence on the wing sure added to the drag there as well). The hot condx's didn't help matters. They may have just gotten away with it on a cool morning, but not in those condx's. I know the mushy/draggy nature of that stearman by having about 600 hours in a similar powered (450hp p&w) heavy Agcat.
 
I agree with Jeff. I don't watch these sorts of videos cuase I like to see people die, I watch and analyse so that I DON'T die! I want to gain as much info as I can and sear it into my psyche to prevent a similar situation. My stock and trade is low level flying, aerial application most of the time in a very similar aircraft, 450 and 600hp Agcats, with heavy loads, ground obstacles to negotiate and at relatively low airspeeds. Anything I can glean from this tradgedy is beneficial and helps all of us to keep on flying safely while not succumming to the "no one should do this-this should'nt be allowed" attitudes that many fliers have who have never experienced the entire flight envelopes of their aircraft.
 
A very tragic event that we all wish could have been avoided. R.I.P. to those involved and their families. If I were to perish prematurely, I would want it to be doing something I enjoy. May just one person learn from this tragic event.
 
I was there - in the front row of chalets. The impact was ~100 yards
beyond me. My observations:

- He seemed slow.
- He was flying a downwind pass. I estimate the winds at ~8 knots.
- There was a noticeable hesitation in the roll to inverted. I remember
thinking, "this is ugly."
- It was a 450 HP Stearman. They can really growl. I do not remember a
lot of power/growl during the roll.
- The announcers kept mentioning/repeating that she owned the airplane
and used contract pilots. That strikes me as "odd." I would think that the
pilot and wing walker would be together for a whole season and should be
able to read each others' mind. Another fora reports that the PIC is her
ex-husband and that they have recent and extensive history of safe ops.
- I do not know what show line was approved to fly. The prior flights
(Wright-B and F=86) seems to use the 24R centerline as the show line.
This flight was typically operating in the grass, closer to the crowd.
- Before the flying started, the announcers spent several minutes
describing a 3000' wall of pyrotechnics that would be used during the
show. CFR seemed quite slow to respond. They where nearby. Dunno who
gives them the "move-out" order, but it took longer than I expected for
them to roll. Perhaps their control confused the crash fireball for the
pyrotechnics. Regardless; arriving 20-30 seconds sooner would not have
saved lives.
 
Last edited:
rainsux said:
I was there - in the front row of chalets. The impact was ~100 yards
beyond me. My observations:

- He seemed slow.
- He was flying a downwind pass. I estimate the winds at ~8 knots.
- There was a noticeable hesitation in the roll to inverted. I remember
thinking, "this is ugly."
- It was a 450 HP Stearman. They can really growl. I do not remember a
lot of power/growl during the roll.
- The announcers kept mentioning/repeating that she owned the airplane
and used contract pilots. That strikes me as "odd." I would think that the
pilot and wing walker would be together for a whole season and should be
able to read each others' mind. Another fora reports that the PIC is her
ex-husband and that they have recent and extensive history of safe ops.
- I do not know what show line was approved to fly. The prior flights
(Wright-B and F=86) seems to use the 24R centerline as the show line.
This flight was typically operating in the grass, closer to the crowd.
- Before the flying started, the announcers spent several minutes
describing a 3000' wall of pyrotechnics that would be used during the
show. CFR seemed quite slow to respond. They where nearby. Dunno who
gives them the "move-out" order, but it took longer than I expected for
them to roll. Perhaps their control confused the crash fireball for the
pyrotechnics. Regardless; arriving 20-30 seconds sooner would not have
saved lives.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your observations. I'm no aerobatic pilot (took one flight lesson though), but that's what I immediately thought when I watched the video. I saw what looked like hesitation during the roll and he seemed slow.

Very sad indeed, my prayers for the two aviators and their families! R.I.P.
 
hkyplr18 said:
I think the control stick broke. Pushing hard forward in 450HP Stearman would be the time it would probably break, if it was cracked. Just doesn't look like a stall to me.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Not a stall. Either control failure or something else, perhaps the pilot was not properly harnessed in.
 
Last edited:
Looked like a couple of factors: too low, too slow: not enough energy. Result was an inverted stall and a wing drop. If it had a stock Stearman wing he needed more pitch up to keep it from dishing at the bottom of the roll. Once inverted and settling, he pushed forward and then stalled, spun.

A symmetrical or semi symmetrical wing would require less pitch up before the roll, but a Stearman is so draggy even with 450HP he simply didn't have enough left to level off. Perhaps a better safety move would have been to roll upright rather than push, but this might have exposed the wing walker and put her under the wing rather than on top.

I think it was also at Dayton or nearby where Jim LeRoy died in his Bulldog. A former Marine sniper, and a great guy, he was one of the most aggressive airshow pilots that I have ever seen. His point rolls were always on the right point, and he flew with a great mix of inside and outside maneuvers. He was one of the most precise and crisp airshow pilots that I have ever seen.

I had the privilege of learning from an FAA designated ACE in a Super Decathlon, and around 400hrs in the Super D, then moved to an Extra 300 for the last 500hrs. When beginning acro I learned that altitude gives you time to react and recover if something goes wrong, like starting inverted stalls and spins at 8,000. As skills and confidence improved, only then move lower.

I also promised my wife that I would never fly in an airshow. The risk/reward ratio was simply not too favorable, at least for me. It is very unforgiving, as we have seen many times.
 
I have never particularly liked the demonstrations where the performers are simply "playing with death". High level aerobatics are one thing, but this just seems like unnecessary risk. I was perfectly content with low, loud, fast military jet flyby's. Unfortunately, those have been eliminated from airshows, and the truly dangerous stuff has been left in.
 
AcroBoy said:
Looked like a couple of factors: too low, too slow: not enough energy. Result was an inverted stall and a wing drop. If it had a stock Stearman wing he needed more pitch up to keep it from dishing at the bottom of the roll. Once inverted and settling, he pushed forward and then stalled, spun.
Click to expand...

I knew Charlie, so this is tough to say, but I don't think this was a mechanical issue. I also do not believe he stalled inverted and snapped/spun. One of the videos was from a more rearward angle, and up until the final pitch down of the nose from inverted, the elevator is in a fairly neutral position. When the nose pitches down from inverted, you can clearly see some aft elevator and right aileron deflected. This elevator position would not have caused an inverted stall, and the right aileron showed the right roll was commanded.

I do think it was an energy issue, and that a high density altitude could have exacerbated the energy issue. From seeing this same maneuver with Jane and this airplane, it appeared this time it was done with less airspeed. As the airplane was rolling, approaching inverted, the nose started dropping. The nose "dished" to the right due to the amount of forward stick applied early, in an attempt to keep the nose up. The roll stabilized in a quasi inverted position, but the airplane was very low, slow, descending, and heading slightly toward the crowd line. It seems the final actions were a hurried attempt to roll upright and pull away from the ground.

However, the amount of aft stick that was applied early in the attempt to roll upright pitched the nose downward. More speculation is that I think he could have possibly arrested the inverted descent, and flown away inverted while eventually gaining enough altitude and airspeed to roll upright. The final control inputs were uncharacteristic of Charlie's skill and experience, but few of us know how our flying skills may hold up when we're a few seconds from dying.

These are just my thoughts based upon having performed and watched hundreds of straight-and-level rolls from the perspective of aerobatic competition, where technique and the maneuver itself is analyzed in great detail.

Charlie and Jane are terrible losses.
 
Last edited:
whifferdill said:
I knew Charlie...Charlie and Jane are terrible losses.
Click to expand...

I didn't know either of them but I do know one thing and that is the fact that every single one of us are going to die - one way or another. You could crash in a fireball standing on the bottom side of an inverted Stearman wing in front of a crowd of people or you could silently suffer in pain in a hospital room for months but either way you're going to have to do it.

The first time I saw a guy get killed at an airshow was around 1967, I was 13 and the elevator came off during a snap roll. I remember thinking for a long time that a snap roll was something very dangerous but I still took my first flying lesson at the age of 15, it didn't deter me in the least.

I've seen other crashes since, I've known people who have been killed in aviation mishaps. I've also seen people die of cancer.

It ain't any prettier.

God bless them for having had the opportunity to do what they loved to do. Stop pitying them because they never asked for it. There are a whole lot of horrible ways to die and most of them involve far more suffering than what Charlie and Jane had to endure.

My hat is off to them
 
whifferdill said:
I knew Charlie, so this is tough to say, but I don't think this was a mechanical issue. I also do not believe he stalled inverted and snapped/spun. One of the videos was from a more rearward angle, and up until the final pitch down of the nose from inverted, the elevator is in a fairly neutral position. When the nose pitches down from inverted, you can clearly see some aft elevator and right aileron deflected. This elevator position would not have caused an inverted stall, and the right aileron showed the right roll was commanded.

I do think it was an energy issue, and that a high density altitude could have exacerbated the energy issue. From seeing this same maneuver with Jane and this airplane, it appeared this time it was done with less airspeed. As the airplane was rolling, approaching inverted, the nose started dropping. The nose "dished" to the right due to the amount of forward stick applied early, in an attempt to keep the nose up. The roll stabilized in a quasi inverted position, but the airplane was very low, slow, descending, and heading slightly toward the crowd line. It seems the final actions were a hurried attempt to roll upright and pull away from the ground.

However, the amount of aft stick that was applied early in the attempt to roll upright pitched the nose downward. More speculation is that I think he could have possibly arrested the inverted descent, and flown away inverted while eventually gaining enough altitude and airspeed to roll upright. The final control inputs were uncharacteristic of Charlie's skill and experience, but few of us know how our flying skills may hold up when we're a few seconds from dying.

These are just my thoughts based upon having performed and watched hundreds of straight-and-level rolls from the perspective of aerobatic competition, where technique and the maneuver itself is analyzed in great detail.

Charlie and Jane are terrible losses.
Click to expand...
This is pretty much what I think I see in the clip, even comparing the two clips.
At first he just seemed to try to roll back early, which was puzzling, but now I see that the trouble really started a moment earlier. I guess his instinct was to try to roll upright, figuring it would climb better. Or maybe he foresaw hitting the ground, and hoped to get it upright for that. I can see from the earlier clip that in order to carry on inverted and actually gain some height, he was pushing quite a bit, even with the bit of extra speed.
But descending already, that low, it would be a nearly impossible challenge for any good aerobatic pilot.
If he'd tried to push longer, even if they'd still impacted the ground she may have survived that. But I can't fault him for trying to roll it back at that moment. The bottom line, to me, is that it was just too low and/or too slow to be doing that... you don't need to be experienced with that stuff to see a need for more height and/or energy. A Stearman, AFAIK, is to be taken very seriously when you are flying it upside-down. Great aerobat, but not really made for that. Even the earlier clip of a normal execution of that "trick" is pretty cringe-worthy to me, although very impressive.

RIP... they gave their best and their all to put on a great show. :sad:
 
Silvaire said:
God bless them for having had the opportunity to do what they loved to do. Stop pitying them because they never asked for it. There are a whole lot of horrible ways to die and most of them involve far more suffering than what Charlie and Jane had to endure.

My hat is off to them
Click to expand...

I cringe every time I read something like "he/she died doing something he/she loved" when their friend/family member/acquaintance/etc. perishes in a plane crash. I suppose it's comforting for them to think that, but for most pilots, that's not the legacy we want to leave. Professional pilots take their craft seriously, and would prefer to die like everyone else--in a boring way--not in a horrific crash that resulted from a failure of the plane or pilot. Hopefully we can learn something from this and that their legacy will be remembered for the way the flew, rather than the way they perished. RIP.
 
Brad Z said:
I cringe every time I read something like "he/she died doing something he/she loved" when their friend/family member/acquaintance/etc. perishes in a plane crash. I suppose it's comforting for them to think that, but for most pilots, that's not the legacy we want to leave. Professional pilots take their craft seriously, and would prefer to die like everyone else--in a boring way--not in a horrific crash that resulted from a failure of the plane or pilot. Hopefully we can learn something from this and that their legacy will be remembered for the way the flew, rather than the way they perished. RIP.
Click to expand...

Very true.
 
Silvaire said:
I didn't know either of them but I do know one thing and that is the fact that every single one of us are going to die - one way or another. You could crash in a fireball standing on the bottom side of an inverted Stearman wing in front of a crowd of people or you could silently suffer in pain in a hospital room for months but either way you're going to have to do it.

The first time I saw a guy get killed at an airshow was around 1967, I was 13 and the elevator came off during a snap roll. I remember thinking for a long time that a snap roll was something very dangerous but I still took my first flying lesson at the age of 15, it didn't deter me in the least.

I've seen other crashes since, I've known people who have been killed in aviation mishaps. I've also seen people die of cancer.

It ain't any prettier.

God bless them for having had the opportunity to do what they loved to do. Stop pitying them because they never asked for it. There are a whole lot of horrible ways to die and most of them involve far more suffering than what Charlie and Jane had to endure.

My hat is off to them
Click to expand...

You said it.
Doing it well for over 2 decades also speaks volumes. At least it was over with quickly. For me, I could stand it if they we're quite so close to the ground, and to hell with what the public expects to see.

Still, always the operator's choice ultimately.
 
> I honestly wouldn't be suprised if the FAA is right now as we speak re-thinking low altitude waivers.

Why? Performers have been crashing and dying at airshows for years and the FAA has not begun a moratorium on low-altitude waivers.

There is also the matter of the impact site and the approved "show line." The two prior acts (Wright-B and F-86) were using the 24R centerline as
their show line. This Strearman/WW act was frequently, closer to the crowd.

There will be an investigation, autopsy and tox screen ... but I don't see the folks at 800 Independence limiting the floor of the acro box to 300:500:1000 feet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_show_accidents_and_incidents
 
Last edited:
rainsux said:
> I honestly wouldn't be suprised if the FAA is right now as we speak re-thinking low altitude waivers.

Why? Performers have been crashing and dying at airshows for years and the FAA has not begun a moratorium on low-altitude waivers.

There is also the matter of the impact site and the approved "show line." The two prior acts (Wright-B and F-86) were using the 24R centerline as
their show line. This Strearman/WW act was frequently, closer to the crowd.

There will be an investigation, autopsy and tox screen ... but I don't see the folks at 800 Independence limiting the floor of the acro box to 300:500:1000 feet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_show_accidents_and_incidents
Click to expand...
Why? Because in case you haven't noticed it, public sentiment is not entirely favorable for general aviation right now. As mentioned earlier, the average public doesn't even notice or think about airshows until they see the gory videos plastered all over the TV and web.

Yes, folks have been getting killed in airshow acts for almost a century. What makes this different is that only in relatively recent years has the public been exposed to the aftermath courtesy of the countless smart phones with instant access to the web.

If you don't think the FAA would consider taking such action under the guise of keeping the public safe, you've apparently missed out on some of the recent changes the FAA has arbitrarily handed down to warbird operators giving rides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top