B17 crash at Dallas.

I just happened to see that video the other day. Sorry I got you excited...I do not know anything about the author, but I thought the information was presented in a very logical manner...but what do I know :)
No worries, I was pulling your leg. I see why Juan is angry, and also why anyone who knows CAF members has gone silent. It's a sad and ugly disaster.
 
Last edited:
The video was by Juan Brown...I believe it is on youtube. It is in reference to the NTSB report. I do not know how to post a link to this video.
It gives a graphic explanation of the NTSB synopsis but no real info rather than the typical grandstanding speculation. The NTSB report pretty much devolves down to the two sentences that have already been posted here.
 
It gives a graphic explanation of the NTSB synopsis but no real info rather than the typical grandstanding speculation. The NTSB report pretty much devolves down to the two sentences that have already been posted here.
Which two?
 
Here is a screenshot from blancolirio's recent video. Very close to the collision, maybe a second or two.

I notice that there is no, or not much, up elevator on the P-63. Is that what would be expected in an aircraft with the bank angle shown for a constant altitude turn? Groundspeed was about 200 (I forget the units).

Is the aircraft pulling a turn or just rolling or can't we tell?

upload_2022-12-3_5-55-36.png

In case you don't have a 2,000 dot screen handy here is a piece of the image.
upload_2022-12-3_6-3-23.png

Video at 43s:
 
Last edited:
It’s my understanding that fighters were changing altitudes during the turn. Climbing and then banking then descending. Essentially a mild wing over turn. In that picture, it appears maybe the bombers were also doing that, though camera angles can be deceptive.
 
What a fricking disaster. I feel really bad for that air boss, I hope he is honest with the ntsb. My engineering mind cannot comprehend why these instructions were given. I wonder how many times this worked out before it finally didn't.
 
What a fricking disaster. I feel really bad for that air boss, I hope he is honest with the ntsb. My engineering mind cannot comprehend why these instructions were given. I wonder how many times this worked out before it finally didn't.
The "general" plan worked pretty much every time at multiple airshows across the south for literally decades??? I think Tora flew 8 full shows and 2 mini shows this year, the previous two years were slow because of Covid, but before that, there might have been 20+ shows a year.

Here's a look at the previous year. I'm in a few of the shots as one of the yellow vest photogs next to the runway. There's also at least one look at the airboss' stand around the 30 min mark, Bomber parade starts about 59:20.


In my mind, there were easily twice as many planes in the airshow last year and twice as many fighters in the fighter flight. I think there is a possibility that with fewer airplanes, someone thought they could safely bring the fighters down with plenty of room and have more airplanes down low. I don't think the airboss was unqualified, I think something went wrong by accident and two crews paid for it with their lives.
 
Last edited:
I think he's referring to the co-altitude track, elements in-trail shackle audible. Hard to tell since we don't have a copy of the briefing available, but so far that doesn't appear to be represented as being anywhere near part of the "general" plan. Rather, a very impromptu audible by the airboss. So it would be a stretch to call that "worked out for decades".

Notwithstanding the question of whether the CAF will keep its letter of revenue exemption going forward, I'd be willing to bet the days of this gentleman volunteering as an airboss are done.
 
I think he's referring to the co-altitude track, elements in-trail shackle audible. Hard to tell since we don't have a copy of the briefing available, but so far that doesn't appear to be represented as being anywhere near part of the "general" plan. Rather, a very impromptu audible by the airboss. So it would be a stretch to call that "worked out for decades".

Notwithstanding the question of whether the CAF will keep its letter of revenue exemption going forward, I'd be willing to bet the days of this gentleman volunteering as an airboss are done.
Assuming the airboss was following the general patten of his dad’s airshows, yes, yes it has worked for decades… and numerous people called his father the best in the business.

D67FE4B7-9860-4AE5-B5B9-00055D5DCDFF.jpeg

so I stand by that comment. He did fine the year before and I doubt he would have been asked back, and the pilots flown under his direction if there were serious doubts about his abilities.

You keep referring to this exemption letter that you think they’ll lose… which one? They aren’t gonna lose their 501(c)3 over this… and this wasn’t a rides accident, either, so I don’t understand why you think that.
 
Based on posted info, the P-63 pilot was in his early 60s. Based on the info above, the Air Boss is in his mid to late 60s.

I stand corrected by @RyanShort1 below. The Air boss was Russell Royce, Ralph Royce's son.

Have to wonder if "physical and/or cognitive decline," brought on by advanced age, is one of the holes in the swiss cheese that lined up.
 
Last edited:
Uh, not trying to be mean, but…
Based on posted info, the P-63 pilot was in his early 60s. Based on the info above, the Air Boss is in his mid to late 60s.

Have to wonder if "physical and/or cognitive decline," brought on by advanced age, is one of the holes in the swiss cheese that lined up.
You didn’t read carefully. That was the airboss’ father.

There is so much of that happening in all the posts about this accident, so I’m not surprised, but reading things carefully matters.
 
Last edited:
Assuming the airboss was following the general patten of his dad’s airshows, yes, yes it has worked for decades… and numerous people called his father the best in the business.

View attachment 112801

so I stand by that comment. He did fine the year before and I doubt he would have been asked back, and the pilots flown under his direction if there were serious doubts about his abilities.

You keep referring to this exemption letter that you think they’ll lose… which one? They aren’t gonna lose their 501(c)3 over this… and this wasn’t a rides accident, either, so I don’t understand why you think that.

I've come to recognize you feel personally aggrieved by scrutiny of certain individuals affiliated with this club. But do take a step back and re-read, because I think you're straw manning my comment. My post (#491) which you quoted, wasn't referring at all to the air boss qualifications or moral character. To reiterate my position, my post was only clarifying that it seemed to me as though @PaulS was asking about the decision/maneuver to shackle the formations in trail, not the show at-large, when he asked rhetorically about how long this has been working. I raised the question whether that has always been part of the show. There's no evidence to show it has, unless someone privy to the brief can say yes, that horrendous shackle was in fact pre-planned.

So that was the context of my post. Now on to my opinion: I do happen to believe that was a terrible decision, to wit causal to the accident, and not Hutain's obvious and exceedingly well-video-recorded execution error in the conduct of the shackle, which has been picked apart to death on here already. It was an imprudent decision on the part of the airboss, and I hope the NTSB and FAA pounce all over that angle. And I 'stand by that comment', since we're being gratuitously emphatic now apparently. :dunno:

As to the exemption letter, we just agree to disagree. I don't think it is necessary for the accident to be in the conduct of a paid ride, for them to lose that privilege. I think the FAA can easily scrutinize this operation and find they're not trust worthy of that exemption. We can two circle that one til we run out of fuel, neither you nor I are the FAA, so we won't know until they pipe up about it.

The only reason I bring the letter up is because I happen to believe they can't survive without it, which again folks are free to disagree; it's a conversation. The insurance going forward is another element within that question, that is currently open as well.
 
I've come to recognize you feel personally aggrieved by scrutiny of certain individuals affiliated with this club.
I'm not personally aggrieved, but my sense of justice, IS offended, OTOH, that there are so many obvious and egregiously ignorant slanders of people taking place that are so easily disproven by simple research.

It's fine to scrutinize, but seriously people (not aimed at you, Hindsight), do your research before you make definitive and serious allegations. As an example, the top comment on the latest on this incident on the Blancolirio channel, that he even pinned, for instance, has over 1000 likes and 340 replies... and yet is easily disproven by footage from last year's 2021 WOD airshow. That's not cool. In addition, all of the chaff - and that's what a TON of the online commentary is, is throwing a ton of people on red herring trails and building straw man arguments against warbirds, old airplanes, and the CAF in general. All of that does nothing for safety or prevention. I spent 5 minutes on the phone with a friend yesterday who was trying to tell me all about the drone that hit the P-63. What a waste of time and electrons, even though I love my friend.

And, speaking of straw men...
But do take a step back and re-read, because I think you're straw manning my comment.

My post (#491) which you quoted, wasn't referring at all to the air boss qualifications or moral character. To reiterate my position, my post was only clarifying that it seemed to me as though @PaulS was asking about the decision/maneuver to shackle the formations in trail, not the show at-large, when he asked rhetorically about how long this has been working. I raised the question whether that has always been part of the show. There's no evidence to show it has, unless someone privy to the brief can say yes, that horrendous shackle was in fact pre-planned.

So that was the context of my post. Now on to my opinion: I do happen to believe that was a terrible decision, to wit causal to the accident, and not Hutain's obvious and exceedingly well-video-recorded execution error in the conduct of the shackle, which has been picked apart to death on here already. It was an imprudent decision on the part of the airboss, and I hope the NTSB and FAA pounce all over that angle. And I 'stand by that comment', since we're being gratuitously emphatic now apparently. :dunno:
Ok, so I accept that as what you meant. I can see that, but as far as I can remember, it's been fairly normal to see the fighters and bombers stacked, but they then, at least in Dallas, usually then sequence them towards the end of the display back down to the lower altitude and space them into trail for the "photo pass" sequences, where the aircraft pass by one by one with reasonable distance in between planes in a nice arc for the cameras. That always requires essentially the same kind of maneuver, albeit spaced better, so to me it doesn't seem like an innovation that happened just this year.
As to the exemption letter, we just agree to disagree. I don't think it is necessary for the accident to be in the conduct of a paid ride, for them to lose that privilege. I think the FAA can easily scrutinize this operation and find they're not trust worthy of that exemption.

We can two circle that one til we run out of fuel, neither you nor I are the FAA, so we won't know until they pipe up about it.
I believe in the end the FAA will probably (hopefully?) see that differently, and I believe if you looked at current CAF safety materials and efforts at culture changes, you might find yourself surprised, but yeah, probably not worth circling over.
The only reason I bring the letter up is because I happen to believe they can't survive without it, which again folks are free to disagree; it's a conversation. The insurance going forward is another element within that question, that is currently open as well.
So, there are planes that do a lot of rides, and also expensive planes that didn't do any rides, like obviously the P-63. I doubt very much that survival will depend on rides. Regarding rides, the unit I was helping was trying to decide whether or not to get the L-2 that I was helping out with ride-ready or not, and there were rules fairly close to a 135 operation in place, with drug testing and all. It's a very serious safety program including the maintenance requirements run at the local unit level, and there are 70+ different units across the country. I fail to see how a timing error at an airshow should be justly used to ground all of the non-formation revenue rides any more than a mid-air collision in a Cessna Citation in some traffic pattern should make the rest of the Citation fleet uninsurable. We don't do that to airlines, cars, Part 135 ops, and it's a double standard if it's done here.
 
Last edited:
Wellllllllll…. A deep dive is gonna likely find other issues….
 
Wellllllllll…. A deep dive is gonna likely find other issues….

If it is a witch hunt, they are certain to find some witches. But if <insert airline or manufacturer's name here) was subject to a witch hunt, they'd find witches there too. Unless they find cultural issues, which I doubt, I think this will come down to either a poor plan or poor execution of a plan. Pretty much a singular event, not an indictment against the CAF, Warbirds, Warbird pilots, Airshows, or all of GA if you want to expand it that far.
 
Wasn’t last years air boss the father of this years air boss? Two different people right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
I came back to say I was surprised at the "no altitude separation was briefed" and I'm guessing the Final report will have some clarification of that. In the general briefing, I remember the 500' and 1000' crowd lines being pointed out clearly and discussed. The traffic flow (north vs south), the holding points and altitudes to keep rides planes and show planes separated. It was a pretty standard briefing. When we broke up into the next briefing, which is where the Trainers talked about their part of the show, and the Cargo (which is where I was), and the Bombers/Fighters, etc., that is where we learned what our specific plan was, what we were going to do, and I can say that our briefing discussed altitudes and show lines and formations per the norm. I believe the others would as well. The actual participants are unable to discuss it publicly at this time, which is only appropriate. Whatever happened with the AirBoss's call, something obviously went horribly wrong, and we--pilots, airshow coordinators, CAF, airbosses, etc.--will do all we can do to make sure nothing like that ever happens again. Following the normal and existing airshow guidelines keeps participants and crowds as safe as possible. Something fell through the crack here. I don't understand, and I know I don't have all the facts. I'll wait for the Final and the ability of the Fighter/Bomber people to be able to talk about it, but in the meantime, the rules as they have been have kept something like this from happening here in the states for a long time. Maybe ever? Has there ever been a midair at an airshow in the US like this? Not that I'm aware of, just things like the "Masters of Disaster" who were a team, who ran into each other because of an error, but not because of a failure to follow altitude separation.

The CAF leadership at HQ has worked Very hard over the last many years to push a culture of safety, in their maintenance, training, and procedures practices. I have seen it first hand. People who tried to get signed off to fly a plane and HQ shoots it down after reviewing their records and tells them to get more time or experience in such and such first. One wing had an old unapproved NAPA part in a PT-26 that they didn't even know was in there, it was there before they got the plane and had never been noticed for decades. But when they had an issue with the plane and one of the head HQ maintenance people came, and got into that part and saw that unapproved part, he told them about it. They immediately replaced it, and he came down months later to look over and inspect everything else and make sure it was an error and not a culture of being shoddy in that wing. Every year we spend 6 hours doing required ground school on *every* plane we fly, and 6 hours of ground in CRM, including a major emphasis on safety, good judgment, etc. At the annual meeting, the night before the accident, the president discussed how proud he was of everyone that in the world's largest operator of warbirds, there were no accidents or incidents for the year. They, we, are working hard to keep the planes flying safely, to honor and educate and inspire, which they do all around the country. If you're a part of giving rides to WWII Veterans and their families, as few as are remaining, or seeing people light up when they see and hear and feel the history in person, or hear the kids asking questions about Red Tail or Nella or Fifi, you'd know it matters. More than just a 'fun show'. More than just pilots 'playing around'. It's bigger than that. More warbirds than ever are being built and flown in good part because of the representation. This was a tragedy, no question, and we all want it to never, ever happen again. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater; the CAF has more invested than about anyone else to want to keep their people, planes, and spectators all safe. Everyone is heartbroken, especially those who knew and cared about those pilots. We will all do what we can moving forward.
 
Last edited:
These crashes and fatalities are always enormous tragedies. But people should be allowed to make their own choices in life and not have the nanny state force everyone to live in a padded box.
 
These crashes and fatalities are always enormous tragedies. But people should be allowed to make their own choices in life and not have the nanny state force everyone to live in a padded box.
As long as it doesn't endanger someone else. And the accident in Dallas would well have done so, if it had occurred a bit later or a bit earlier. There's video of debris falling on highways, fortunately no one was hit.

Ron Wanttaja
 
As long as it doesn't endanger someone else. And the accident in Dallas would well have done so, if it had occurred a bit later or a bit earlier. There's video of debris falling on highways, fortunately no one was hit.

Ron Wanttaja
That’s a double standard.

Yes, maybe that corner could be tucked a tad tighter onto airport property, but I already take similar risks on that highway every day - six fatalities in a car wreck isn’t as uncommon as I’d like, and since final for 31 is basically right there, the only way to completely mitigate aviation risk there would be to close the runway. We could just as easily have a business jet have a departure or landing accident with MORE risk to the highway.
 
That’s a double standard.

Yes, maybe that corner could be tucked a tad tighter onto airport property, but I already take similar risks on that highway every day - six fatalities in a car wreck isn’t as uncommon as I’d like, and since final for 31 is basically right there, the only way to completely mitigate aviation risk there would be to close the runway. We could just as easily have a business jet have a departure or landing accident with MORE risk to the highway.

That’s not how the risk-management matrix works. You have two axes - likelihood and consequence.

In general, the lower end of likelihood is “normal” ops in well-maintained aircraft on VFR days, dry runways, operated by proficient, professional flight crews, etc. The lower end of consequence is few people in the area, fewer people on the aircraft, and smaller aircraft at lower speeds. Granted, Redbird automatically ticks a little higher on the consequence for any kind of ops because of the highway off the end of the runway. But that does not put it in high risk. The risk really doesn’t get categorized into high until you start moving up on both axes, though some kinds of ops definitely qualify as high-risk based on likelihood or consequence alone.

However, airshow flying, depending on the specifics, often has a higher element of likelihood and consequence, by nature, and thus is moderate to high risk as soon as the wheels leave the ground. Older equipment, higher speeds, maneuvering, aerobatics, formation flying, dissimilar aircraft, converging flight paths, massed crowds, low altitudes, reliance on coordination of non-standard operations (meaning the plan is different with different aircraft/pilots/airspace/weather, etc, each time, requiring a mission brief). If it didn’t have all that, there wouldn’t be any need for rules (like show lines), coordination, etc.

You can’t really change the consequence except by limiting the exposure of the massed crowd. So all that coordination (and training) is there to reduce the likelihood. The practices for this show that have been highlighted to date did not seem to accomplish that objective.

TL;DR, you can’t equate the risk provided by normal operations with that of an airshow.
 
It's mind boggling how much some of y'all seem to hate airshows and old airplanes, and are willing to throw your fellow aviators under the bus. And it's still a double standard. There have been two aircraft land off field at Dallas Executive this year.

This thing was a perfect freak accident and no amount of prevention is good enough when it's your time to go.
 
This thing was a perfect freak accident and no amount of prevention is good enough when it's your time to go.
I agree with the rest of your post. But I don't think I can agree with the quoted portion. I don't see this as a freak accident. I see this as a major failure in the chain. I don't know specifically where the failure occurred, but at least one person made a big mistake, if not many. I do not believe it is ever a good idea to put planes that close to each other when they do not have visual contact and that most certainly happened here.

Maybe the plan allowed for that and many people should have said something. Maybe the pilot put himself in that position due to error. Maybe multiple pilots put themselves in that position. I don't know.

This is the same position I held in my thread a month or so back when an event I flew in resulted in planes getting very close to each other without visual contact. I believe everyone involved in that situation was to blame. We should have had a better plan that did not allow for that.

My opinion.
 
It's mind boggling how much some of y'all seem to hate airshows and old airplanes, and are willing to throw your fellow aviators under the bus. And it's still a double standard. There have been two aircraft land off field at Dallas Executive this year.

This thing was a perfect freak accident and no amount of prevention is good enough when it's your time to go.

Completely disagree. I love airshows. I am simply stating the facts as it pertains to risk management. Reading anything else into my stance is pure conjecture out of defensiveness.

Nonetheless, this particular chain of events, and other like it, puts all airshows at risk because the risk seems to have not been properly mitigated, and once that hits the public eye, the defenses and justifications of us enthusiasts and participants become weak.

That said, I also wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that mitigation does not decrease risk based on a (paraphrased) resignation of “when it’s your time, it’s your time.” Based on that, why mitigate at all? Should we just go on blind, dumb luck and leave it up to fate? Fate favors the prepared. There have to be lines drawn somewhere, and arbitrarily saying things like “freak accident” is making excuses for the lines that weren’t drawn in this case.

Now, that’s not to say we will ever eliminate all risk, but that’s a straw argument that nobody here is proposing. Most people here are justifiably putting the blame on the apparent lack of risk mitigation. We want airshows, and we want the risk to be as low as possible for everybody involved by thorough proper preparation and risk mitigation - things spectators and outside observers should never have to think about, yet here we are.
 
This thing was a perfect freak accident and no amount of prevention is good enough when it's your time to go.
You're supporting the counter argument here. If these types of incidents are inevitable and unavoidable, you can't justify these shows as being worth the risk.
 
You're supporting the counter argument here. If these types of incidents are inevitable and unavoidable, you can't justify these shows as being worth the risk.
Sure I can. It car accidents are unavoidable, we can’t justify highways.
 
You're supporting the counter argument here. If these types of incidents are inevitable and unavoidable, you can't justify these shows as being worth the risk.
There's a presumption here, that teaching about history and providing entertainment has less value than other human activities. By that standard, anyone that has a wreck going to the theater, a ball game, or the beach should be subject to enhanced safety rules to prevent the car accidents on the road. Y'all are cherry-picking the negative factors against aviation, and that's not great being an aviation forum.
There ARE extra rules for airshows already, and they have worked very well for the last three decades and the what-ifs regarding this accident are actually stretching relatively hard against the fact that the majority of the debris was on airport property. The collision itself basically happened right over the access road and fence, and the wind caused some of the lighter debris to drift backwards.
 
Sure I can. It car accidents are unavoidable, we can’t justify highways.

That’s a poor comparison that does not apply any risk management strategy, nor any sort of comparative statistical analysis.

Additionally, it makes the case for mitigation strategies, many of which have been undertaken, at great expense, over a period of over a hundred years or so.

Lastly, it discounts the “reward” side of risk - most commerce is necessary, people have to earn money, product needs to get to market, etc.

What are the broader consequences of shutting down highway travel?

What are the broader consequences of shutting down airshows? Again, I have to take my personal feelings out of it.
 
Sure I can. It car accidents are unavoidable, we can’t justify highways.

This is a poor, straw argument that is making your case weaker.

There are a ton of mitigative efforts that go into car travel, including consequences for poor driving, ranging from fines, to suspension/revocation of license, loss of property, and, ultimately, severe injury and/or death.

Nobody here is saying “end airshows,” that’s you being defensive. We are saying “shape up” so it doesn’t come to that.
 
That’s a poor comparison that does not apply any risk management strategy, nor any sort of comparative statistical analysis.

Additionally, it makes the case for mitigation strategies, many of which have been undertaken, at great expense, over a period of over a hundred years or so.

Lastly, it discounts the “reward” side of risk - most commerce is necessary, people have to earn money, product needs to get to market, etc.

What are the broader consequences of shutting down highway travel?

What are the broader consequences of shutting down airshows? Again, I have to take my personal feelings out of it.
This gets down to your beliefs about society and of government. I'm pretty sure that's at the root of this. Some people are quite happy to pick and choose what things they think are valuable, and shut down those they don't like, for whatever reason.
This is a poor, straw argument that is making your case weaker.
Actually, I was saying that that argument is at it's heart, the same as yours, not that I actually agree with it, at all... Your argument is the poor one.

Airshows get more scrutiny because of their rarity, than other forms of entertainment, but I think if you were honest with the numbers, the actual safety risk is reasonably low, and again, you act as if the rules haven't worked, and even didn't work in this case, where no one in the public actually died. All of the what-ifs in the world could also be applied to other events and activities.
 
It's mind boggling how much some of y'all seem to hate airshows and old airplanes...

Looking for ways to make airshows and old airplanes safer is what I would expect from someone who loves them, not "hates" them.

This thing was a perfect freak accident and no amount of prevention is good enough when it's your time to go.
That sounds like resignation.
 
Last edited:
What are the broader consequences of shutting down airshows? Again, I have to take my personal feelings out of it.
The broader consequence is that we can take any particular activity that we don't like, and try to shut it down. I'd say maybe we can shut down all rave and rap concerts and nightclubs since I don't like them and there are often safety incidents at nightclubs, but maybe the list needs to be longer.
That sounds like resignation.
No, it's just saying that sometimes you personally can do everything right and something can still go wrong. How many people have been traveling in the correct lane on the highway and died because some drunk driver decided to get on the wrong ramp and speed into one-way traffic?
 
Looking for ways to make airshows and old airplanes safer is what I would expect from someone who loves them, not "hates" them.
I've mentioned that I expect new rules about separation of merges, somewhere I'm positive I've mentioned that perhaps there needs to be more than one person in the airboss operation, I wouldn't be against there being a person at each corner of the field that could help with collision mitigation, since, from my location close to the airboss' stand, I doubt he could tell that there wasn't enough separation in the last 4-5 seconds, but that also means you need to correctly identify the source of the problem, and a lot of the comments here are based on faulty presumptions being widely disseminated.
 
This gets down to your beliefs about society and of government. I'm pretty sure that's at the root of this. Some people are quite happy to pick and choose what things they think are valuable, and shut down those they don't like, for whatever reason.

Well, if you want to take the argument there, and I think it’s a mistake on your part…

Risk management and public perception of the safety afforded themselves (whether participating or not) go hand-in-hand - they are inseparable. When there is a high-risk event that results in harm, and it is exposed to the public, all the good in the world won’t matter until there is a plan of mitigation, possibly including consequences for those who had a part.

If you want to handwave the politics of it (which is defined as getting people of disparate opinion to come to a consensus), then all you have left is the axiom “do whatever makes you feel good,” which comes with the corollary “no matter the effect on others.” I wholeheartedly disagree with that resigned attitude.

We have to function as a society. There are too many of us not to; it’s too crowded not to. That’s why there are rules pertaining to highways and airshows alike, and the standards, in many cases are formed by local, national, or global entities, and enforced by local or national authorities. And in a democracy, the authority given to all these entities is from the body politic, which is to say, center-mass of everything from hobby to livelihood to sustenance. We enthusiasts and participants can only move the needle so much, but the best way to do it is to make damn sure something like this doesn’t happen again.

The history of warbirds is damn important, but at the end of the day all people are going to remember from this accident is a collision resulting in a ball of fire and the loss of six lives.

The aviation industry outside of commercial cargo and passenger transport, is niche, no matter how much we want it to be otherwise. It depends on greater society’s perception of it to keep it going, whether we like it or not.

If you have a problem with that reality, that’s going to be on you. You’re defensive, and I get it, but I’m just pointing out reality here. You’re making the straw comparison to highway risk and the onus is on you to provide the data that will sway public perception. I’m simply pointing out the flaw in your arguments that is really not helping your case.
 
Well, if you want to take the argument there, and I think it’s a mistake on your part…
Honest, your replies do feel hostile / aggressive. Why?
Risk management and public perception of the safety afforded themselves (whether participating or not) go hand-in-hand - they are inseparable. When there is a high-risk event that results in harm, and it is exposed to the public, all the good in the world won’t matter until there is a plan of mitigation, possibly including consequences for those who had a part.
Believe it or not, I live right here in Oak Cliff, and 95% of the negativity I've heard in circles at work, church, and etc... has actually come from the pilot community. Since none of the public actually died, I haven't really heard that much public corollary discussion. Despite all the "what ifs" here the majority of the wreckage was on the airport, pretty far away from the crowds, and you CAN say that the rules essentially worked.
If you want to handwave the politics of it (which is defined as getting people of disparate opinion to come to a consensus), then all you have left is the axiom “do whatever makes you feel good,” which comes with the corollary “no matter the effect on others.” I wholeheartedly disagree with that resigned attitude.
Huh? That sounds like a lot of word salad to me. I'd like to simplify it to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and government is to punish evildoers and praise the good. There's also a big leap from accident to evil. Malice vs human frailty.
We have to function as a society. There are too many of us not to; it’s too crowded not to. That’s why there are rules pertaining to highways and airshows alike, and the standards, in many cases are formed by local, national, or global entities, and enforced by local or national authorities. And in a democracy, the authority given to all these entities is from the body politic, which is to say, center-mass of everything from hobby to livelihood to sustenance. We enthusiasts and participants can only move the needle so much, but the best way to do it is to make damn sure something like this doesn’t happen again.
Again, I myself have suggested possible mitigation, but keep in mind the axiom that hard cases make bad laws. It's a problem if the cure is worse than the disease.
The history of warbirds is damn important, but at the end of the day all people are going to remember from this accident is a collision resulting in a ball of fire and the loss of six lives.

The aviation industry outside of commercial cargo and passenger transport, is niche, no matter how much we want it to be otherwise. It depends on greater society’s perception of it to keep it going, whether we like it or not.
So, niche = less deserving of protection? Are we going to mob rule? I thought we protected minorities, even if perverse by other people's standards, in this society? Arbitrarily allowing for double standards where you like them is an intellectual sin.
If you have a problem with that reality, that’s going to be on you. You’re defensive, and I get it, but I’m just pointing out reality here. You’re making the straw comparison to highway risk and the onus is on you to provide the data that will sway public perception. I’m simply pointing out the flaw in your arguments that is really not helping your case.
Maybe I am defensive, or maybe my look through the pages of history makes me think that the tragedy is being used in a manner akin to a witch hunt, from a community that I value, and I think it's unbecoming.
 
Last edited:
Honest, your replies do feel hostile / aggressive. Why?

They’re not, and if they seem that way, I apologize for my tone. You led with this:

It's mind boggling how much some of y'all seem to hate airshows and old airplanes, and are willing to throw your fellow aviators under the bus

then this:

This gets down to your beliefs about society and of government. I'm pretty sure that's at the root of this. Some people are quite happy to pick and choose what things they think are valuable, and shut down those they don't like, for whatever reason.

You were right here, but not for the reason you probably think. It is at the root, but it’s not my problem, as I said before, the onus is on the folks who embark on any behavior that is perceived as risky for little reward.

Then several posts later, you followed it up with this:

Huh? That sounds like a lot of word salad to me. I'd like to simplify it to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and government is to punish evildoers and praise the good. There's also a big leap from accident to evil. Malice vs human frailty.

“Word salad” - on what was I not clear?

Yours is an emotional argument that, while I agree with the sentiment, has little basis in reality because public perception of the risk to themselves, when compared to the perception of reward, whether real or imaginary, is everything. Anything else is simply your opinion.

The reality is standards and laws are written, often in blood, and the public, in a convoluted way, decide whether our hobbies and activities continue by supporting (or not), funding (or not), or voting for (or against) the activities (or indirectly by the people who make the rules). If they perceive it is a high enough risk to the public, for little reward to the public, then the activity may simply cease to be, at least in its current form.

You can’t handwave politics, no matter how much you want to. If you want to move the needle on public perception, you have to educate, you have to provide data, not just call “double-standard,” and incriminate the risk/reward perceptions of others by making an apples and orange comparison.
 
Back
Top