p-51 Crash @ osh

J

jpflys

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
188
Location
Cary,Illinois
Display Name
Display name:
JP Flys
Co-worker of mine just saw a appearantly fatal crash on landing ( 2 -p-51s ) at airshow
Sad
 
Yes ,it seems that way.
 

Attachments

  • mn_eaa_airshow_crash9.jpg
    mn_eaa_airshow_crash9.jpg
    19.5 KB · Views: 99
Wow. I was wondering what all the fire trucks were about- I wasn't watching the show....they thundered by.
 
Wow. That is NOT good.

Doug Rosendahl from Mason City, IA flew one of the P-51's in the mock air race last year. No clue if he was involved this year, though.
 
If I remember correctly, the P-51 with the blue tail belongs(ed) to Paul Poberenzy (one of the founders of EAA), and was often flown by none other than Chuck Yeager.

Very sad time, and many condolences to the families.
 
Ron Levy said:
Seems like they can't get through AirVenture without at least three fatals each year.
Click to expand...

The local papers claim there hasn't been a fatal "at the air show" in 15 years.

Of course, that phrase is a qualifier. It leaves out last years taxi fatality. I think the last was Doctor Dachter...errr nope. His wasn't fatal.

I witnessed the Italian performer in the Falco failing to recover in time from the inverted flat spin but that was more than 15 years ago.
 
Last edited:
mikea said:
The local papers claim they hadn't been a fatal "at the air show" in 15 years. Of course, that phrase is a qualifier.
Click to expand...
...no doubt referring only to the actual air demonstrations as opposed to arrival/departure accidents.
 
CJones said:
Wow. That is NOT good.

Doug Rosendahl from Mason City, IA flew one of the P-51's in the mock air race last year. No clue if he was involved this year, though.
Click to expand...

Chris, you've probably seen the reports that it was Gerry Beck in the P51. Doug was circling overhead in Duggy when it happened. He stayed up while things were getting sorted out and then landed on 9 or 27.
 
tonycondon said:
Chris, you've probably seen the reports that it was Gerry Beck in the P51. Doug was circling overhead in Duggy when it happened. He stayed up while things were getting sorted out and then landed on 9 or 27.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. My boss knew Gerry. He designed the "Super Boom" (spray booms) for Air Tractor spray planes, of which we have one set of his booms on one of our planes. Gerry was a former cropduster if I remember correctly.
 
The picture makes it look like they came together while doing a formation landing when -- anyone know if that's true?
 
All I have to say is..........

well....nothing, because I can't think of any words that can properly encompass the amount of stupidity exercised by the "pilot".

Yeah, flame me, but there is NO excuse for that. None whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
im more surprised that of the 1000's of arrivals and departures that the generally untrained masses of pilots managed to get in and out without a fatality. The P-51 accident is tragic, but accidents happen. These guys were air racers and seasoned warbird pilots and i think they knew more than anyone the risk they were taking. the risk starts when you strap in and stops when you jump out. fact is, anytime we show up at the airport, it could very well be the last time.
 
CJones said:
Video here:
http://www.aero-tv.net/index.cfm?videoid=00b0d640-e714-4b79-b17b-6f3b0f149c4d

Looks like #2 came in high and hot, tried to get down, picked up excess speed, tried to pull out of it and caught #1's tail on the way up.
Click to expand...

What struck me about the video is how fast everything happened. Having been to several airshows I always come away going "Wow, that's close".
I haven't been to one in almost a decade, I just don't want to see folks put themselves in that kind of danger for my entertainment. I feel the same about auto and motorcycle racing.

I'd be happy to see things not quite so "cutting edge" if it means more pilots living and less beautiful airplane flesh destroyed. I for one don't see the need for a close formation landing like that by civilians in peace time.

I'm not out to make things illegal, far be from me. It was their choice, and they chose to do it in a controlled, closed course to prevent, to the extent possible, harm to bystanders. As they say, "He died doing what he loves" I just question for myself, "How important is it for me to see a ribbon cut in inverted flight a dozen feet off the runway?"
 
Here's a quote from the Formation Landing section of the standard manual for all FAST-sanctioned formation flying (which includes P-51's at AirVenture):

T-34 Formation Flight Manual (c) T-34 Association said:
"The wingman should assume the same acute position* as he did for the formation takeoff, for the same reasons. On short final, the wingman will have to divide his attention between the leader and the runway lineup, always assuring adequate wingtip clearance with the lead aircraft. The wingman should stack level with the leader for the landing so that he lands at the same time as the lead.[emphasis added]

*From the Formation Takeoff section: [In a formation takeoff,] "the wingman will line up well forward of the normal 45-degree angle-off position. (This assures that the wingman will quickly clear the leader if the leader aborts...)"
Click to expand...

One should consider the highlighted text when reviewing the video, in which it appears that the wingman is initially well behind and above lead, does not have wingtip-to-wingtip separation, and is still well in the air when lead touches down. One should also be reminded that there is a contract between leader and wingman in a formation flight, and part of that contract is that the wingman is responsible to the leader to be in the proper position. If the wingman keeps his plane in the position described in the T-34 FFM, the accident in the video cannot happen.

That said, there is no way we will ever know whether the wingman's apparent mispositioning was due to lack of knowledge, lack of skill, bad judgement, or just a bad day at the office. In that regard, I'll withhold any judgement on this one.
 
Last edited:
If I caught the video correctly, the wingman is behind and still airborne. He descends and accelerates. His right wing ends up below the lead aircraft's left horizontal stabilizer. Suddenly, the wingman decides to abort the landing and upon pull up, he lifts the lead's horizontal stabilizer causing a flip and subsequent cartwheel.

Am I correct?
 
KennyFlys said:
If I caught the video correctly, the wingman is behind and still airborne. He descends and accelerates. His right wing ends up below the lead aircraft's left horizontal stabilizer. Suddenly, the wingman decides to abort the landing and upon pull up, he lifts the lead's horizontal stabilizer causing a flip and subsequent cartwheel.

Am I correct?
Click to expand...
Dunno, but your narrative appears to be one explanation that is consistent with the video, although there are various other possibilities.
 
Ron Levy said:
Dunno, but your narrative appears to be one explanation that is consistent with the video, although there are various other possibilities.
Click to expand...
I'm all ears! Well, sorta... What else is there?
 
i saw one post on vansairforce that there was discussion in the warbird community that this was actually an untintentional formation landing. that the P51A that eventually flipped and burned was on its second approach and that somehow some way he did not see the P51D until it was too late. it would almost seem sensible. just speculation now but i suppose as the NTSB gets the statement from the other pilot a lot of light will be shed.
 
Some credible eyewitness accounts on video at

http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070727/VIDEO0101/307280025

I was under the wing of the B-24 waiting to launch on the "jet line" in warbirds parking and was not looking in the direction of the accident when it occurred so I only saw the aftermath. My information is only third hand, but there was no intention of a "formation landing" by the demo race participants. I got to ride back seat in a -51 on Friday for a two ship formation flight. The forward visibility in the landing configuration is virtually nil from the pilot's seat, even less from the jump seat behind it.

On the provided link there is also other videos from Airventure, including a clip of the T-6 that landed on US 41 near Fond du Lac airport taken by state trooper car video.

I understand the insurance payout on the RV-6/Avenger accident in '06 is near $90 million.

Fly while you can.
 
the thought was the airboss thought they were intending to land in formation. i think the prelim report from the nTSB on this one may shed some light
 
tonycondon said:
the thought was the airboss thought they were intending to land in formation.
Click to expand...
If the Air Boss thought they were a formation, and they weren't, that would suggest a major breakdown in communication all around.
i think the prelim report from the nTSB on this one may shed some light
Click to expand...
Not up yet, but I'll be looking.
 
...and it's been posted. The line most interesting to me is:
NTSB Preliminary Report CHI07FA243B said:
"...the five aircraft were in the process of landing separately, and not in formation,..."
Click to expand...
On that basis, it appears to me that the key questions are, "If they weren't in formation, how'd 82U get that close behind 1RJ, and why didn't 82U go around when he got that close to 1RJ? If the Air Boss thought they weren't in formation, why didn't s/he say something? And if the Air Boss thought they were in formation, why didn't s/he know they weren't?" No doubt the NTSB will be working on the answers to those for the next few months.
 
Last edited:
Regardless of the answers to those questions... If the wingman thought he was supposed to be in formation and was not, I cannot see any logical reason for attempting to continue to become a formation at any point on final and certainly not when about to flair and touch down. That just seems short of nothing less than poor decision making.
 
Ron Levy said:
...and it's been posted. The line most interesting to me is:

On that basis, it appears to me that the key questions are, "If they weren't in formation, how'd 82U get that close behind 1RJ, and why didn't 82U go around when he got that close to 1RJ? If the Air Boss thought they weren't in formation, why didn't s/he say something? And if the Air Boss thought they were in formation, why didn't s/he know they weren't?" No doubt the NTSB will be working on the answers to those for the next few months.
Click to expand...

very interesting Ron. I have the same thoughts. My understanding is that vis over the nose on a P51 on approach is basically nil. Steve even said so. From watching the accident video, i wonder if 82U DID try to go around once he realized how close he was to 1RJ, but by then he was already too close and collided.
 
KennyFlys said:
Regardless of the answers to those questions... If the wingman thought he was supposed to be in formation and was not, I cannot see any logical reason for attempting to continue to become a formation at any point on final and certainly not when about to flair and touch down. That just seems short of nothing less than poor decision making.
Click to expand...
All public, reliable data to date says nobody in either plane thought they were in formation. Another question that will probably never be answered is when 82U realized (if he even did so before impact) how close he was to 1RJ. As you note, it seems beyond comprehension that 82U would have continued the approach had he made that realization almost any time up to just prior to impact.
 
tonycondon said:
My understanding is that vis over the nose on a P51 on approach is basically nil.
Click to expand...
My understanding is the same.
From watching the accident video, i wonder if 82U DID try to go around once he realized how close he was to 1RJ, but by then he was already too close and collided.
Click to expand...
Based on my viewing of that video, that would seem possible.

Guess if there's a lesson here at this point, it's that you can't ever, ever, ever stop scanning for traffic in a non-tower pattern, including at your 12 o'clock position, and if you have a long-nosed plane like a '51, that includes moving the nose so you can see around it. Further, if you know there are five planes in the pattern, and you only see three, you'd better not bet your life that the plane you can't see isn't where you might hit it (situational awareness, and all that).
 
It seems to me but for one single issue, the entire event could have been avoided... communication.

I'm not aware of how the air shows are handled by controllers. I don't know if they are used now but wouldn't it be wise to have controllers located upfield to observe aircraft on short final and near touch down? I'd think it would be good to have a controller located at the approach end with the ability to tell the "wingman" he was closing in on the other aircraft and order them to pull up and go around. That one order would have prevented it, not counting communication prior to the approach and other actions on the part of the wingman.
 
KennyFlys said:
I'm not aware of how the air shows are handled by controllers.
Click to expand...
They were in the aerobatic box. I assume (and expect to be corrected if I am wrong) that the box is uncontrolled airspace, including the runway at the floor of the box. "Control" is exercised by the airboss, not by ATC. It does appear that the deceased just lost situational awareness - maybe he relaxed a bit too much after the "air race" was over. What a shame.

-Skip
 
Generally, at air shows, a TFR is established around the airport, usuallly 3-5 miles in diameter, and 5000-15000 feet tall (depending on whether we're talking Pitts Special or F-16 as the highest performance aircraft in the show). The Air Boss controls the overall show (i.e., who gets the airspace, when they taxi, etc), but each act is given the airspace by the Boss for the duration of its performance. The Air Boss may send aircraft out between performances to wait their turn airborne (usually the case with jumpers and glider acts), or may tell folks when to start and/or taxi, but within each act, it is the act's responsibility to keep their act inside the designated airspace and they alone are responsible for the conduct of their demo, including not running into each other. Once ATC gives the airspace to the Air Boss, they have no further responsibility for what goes on other than to keep all IFR traffic outside the TFR airspace. Nonparticipating VFR traffic should stay out on their own based on the NOTAM establishing the TFR, but sometimes someone does wander in, and ATC helps the Air Boss team keep an eye out for intruders so a "knock it off" call can be made if necessary.

That said, it does not sound like this was a typical performance, but rather, a simulated air race. I have no idea who was in charge or how it was arranged or coordinated, and there are a great number of possibilities on how it was organized. Without knowing that, there's no real way to tell who woulda/coulda/shoulda made a call.
 
Ron Levy said:
Generally, at air shows, a TFR is established around the airport, usuallly 3-5 miles in diameter, and 5000-15000 feet tall (depending on whether we're talking Pitts Special or F-16 as the highest performance aircraft in the show). The Air Boss controls the overall show (i.e., who gets the airspace, when they taxi, etc), but each act is given the airspace by the Boss for the duration of its performance. The Air Boss may send aircraft out between performances to wait their turn airborne (usually the case with jumpers and glider acts), or may tell folks when to start and/or taxi, but within each act, it is the act's responsibility to keep their act inside the designated airspace and they alone are responsible for the conduct of their demo, including not running into each other. Once ATC gives the airspace to the Air Boss, they have no further responsibility for what goes on other than to keep all IFR traffic outside the TFR airspace. Nonparticipating VFR traffic should stay out on their own based on the NOTAM establishing the TFR, but sometimes someone does wander in, and ATC helps the Air Boss team keep an eye out for intruders so a "knock it off" call can be made if necessary.

...
Click to expand...
I just caught the Blue Angels series on Discovery. I didn't realize that "Boss*, we own the airport AND airspace." comes from the Blue Angel's controllers. They showed a practice in Anchorage where they had a lot of VFR traffic wandering around and had to wait until they were all out of the area.

When they went to Traverse City they were briefed to stay high due to 400-500 foot AGL towers - some on hills - in the box. Fascinating. I know they got close to buildings in Chicago because I was in one.

Oh, and they went to a laundromat in Traverse City to wash their flight suits. :D

* In this case "Boss" = The team commander, Blue Angel #1
 
flyingcheesehead said:
John Deakin wrote an interesting article that may be relevant...
Click to expand...

deakins article deals with the seemingly torque roll go around in camarillo, not oshkosh. by all accounts and the ntsb prelim, oshkosh was a basic see and avoid accident. where the seeing didnt happen until the wing of one airplane was under the tail of another.
 
mikea said:
I just caught the Blue Angels series on Discovery. I didn't realize that "Boss*, we own the airport AND airspace." comes from the Blue Angel's controllers.
Click to expand...
To pick a semantic nit, there is only one Blue Angel "controller," and that's the Boss (the team's squadron commander and Flight Lead -- if the Boss don't fly, nobody flies), who is 100% in charge of, and responsible for, everything the Blues do. The Boss answers only to the 2-star admiral Chief of Naval Air Training via the 4-stripe captain Blue Angels Program Manager (whose principal mission is to keep an close eye on the Blue Angels commander himself, and who must have been a Blue Angel flying team member and flying unit commander). The referenced call comes from the Blues' ground safety observers to the Boss after ATC tells the ground observers the team has control of the area.
 
tonycondon said:
deakins article deals with the seemingly torque roll go around in camarillo, not oshkosh. by all accounts and the ntsb prelim, oshkosh was a basic see and avoid accident. where the seeing didnt happen until the wing of one airplane was under the tail of another.
Click to expand...

But in that last "Oh **** go around" moment, he may well have torque-rolled. That's what it looks like to me, looking at the pics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top