11/12/2022 - Texas Raiders and P-63 King Cobra collide

[p51]

or crash into a birthday party at an ice cream shop.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Sacramento_Canadair_Sabre_accident

People weren't nearly as sue-happy back then. There were settlements but nothing like you'd see if that were to happen today.

[bluehawk15]

There was a mention of the Class B airspace floor being at 3000 feet above the airport. Wouldn't that be able to be modified with the waiver as well?

[Dave Hadfield]

Just to be clear, for those who haven't been aircrew at an airshow, please have a look:

Airshow Performances: Background: there is a Pilot's Briefing on each of the days. If you don't attend, and sign in, you don't fly (unless you're in a Team and a rep is there). On the table is a copy of the SFOC -- the Special Flight Operations Certificate. It lists all the performers, the limits they are authorized by the FAA/TC to fly to (100 AGL, 200 AGL, etc), plus the airspace boundaries and restrictions. It's a federal approval for the airshow to take place. There are always restrictions, and they're written right there. As a pilot you are required to read it, and sign that you read it.

The Air Boss then elaborates on all this during the Briefing, explaining how the maneuvering will take place, as well as the "box" layout and markings, comms, weather, alternates and so on -- the nitty-gritty of timings and takeoffs, and routing, and how the airshow will flow to satisfy the sponsoring body and the FAA/TC, while staying safe -- and maybe even achieving the goals of the sponsoring body and the paying crowd although that's always last priority. It usually takes an hour or more. A large show will break it up into several portions.

It's all quite formal. Not written in stone -- the briefing always exposes conflicts and questions which the Air Boss handles then-and-there -- but the pilot walks away knowing when, where and how they're supposed to fly.

None of the current youtube commenters were at the briefing for this show, or flew there, or stood on the Air Boss stand. These commenters do NOT offer analysis. Only speculation. They were not on site with a role in the airshow, and are not informed. (And yes, full-disclosure, I'm a youtuber too, although I never offer opinions on crashes ahead of the NTSB.)

Answering a specific question about vertical airspace restrictions, yes, it's a big deal. I walked into an Airshow Briefing recently with a show-routine in the Spitfire practiced and ready to go, only to find that the SFOC required the performers to be 1000 AGL at the east end of the airport fence (some home-owners refused to go to the beach that day...). THAT was a bit surprising. I had to modify my show right then and there, confer with the Air Boss, walk-it-out on the ground again and again and again, get it thoroughly settled in my brain, before I hit the starter on the Merlin.

It's here if anyone wants to see it.

https://youtu.be/yOthZs2koJw

[youtube]https://youtu.be/yOthZs2koJw[/youtube]

[Mark Allen M]

Thanks Dave, I heard your mic drop all the way out here on the West Coast.

[p51]

None of the current youtube commenters were at the briefing for this show, or flew there, or stood on the Air Boss stand. These commenters do NOT offer analysis. Only speculation. They were not on site with a role in the airshow, and are not informed.

Good point. An airshow pilot can generally give better speculation than some air show fan, through their experience. But if they weren't there for the brief, in the end they're guessing as well as any of the rest of us can from seeing the video and photos.
I've sat in on a few show briefs in the past, and the phrase, "Semper Gumby" (always flexible) comes to mind. But anyone walking out of the tent/room has zero excuse if they fly the show other than briefed.
We can all think of a few places where this all went sour. The Air Boss making a different call, the P-63 being out of place, the B-17 being out of place, either aircraft flying above or below the briefed speed, or any other number of things that hasn't even occurred to any of us.
But the very idea that these videos are presenting an end result? That's just silly.

[Xray]

None of the current youtube commenters were at the briefing for this show, or flew there, or stood on the Air Boss stand. These commenters do NOT offer analysis. Only speculation. They were not on site with a role in the airshow, and are not informed.

Good point. An airshow pilot can generally give better speculation than some air show fan, through their experience. But if they weren't there for the brief, in the end they're guessing as well as any of the rest of us can from seeing the video and photos.
I've sat in on a few show briefs in the past, and the phrase, "Semper Gumby" (always flexible) comes to mind. But anyone walking out of the tent/room has zero excuse if they fly the show other than briefed.
We can all think of a few places where this all went sour. The Air Boss making a different call, the P-63 being out of place, the B-17 being out of place, either aircraft flying above or below the briefed speed, or any other number of things that hasn't even occurred to any of us.
But the very idea that these videos are presenting an end result? That's just silly.

So you are basically saying that unless you were a performer or airboss at that show, just keep quiet and wait for the report.
Maybe not bad sentiments, but good luck with that. Years ago I may have more or less agreed about the armchair quarterbacking spiel, but ADS-B is a game changer, and is anything but speculation and guessing.
It is raw data of aircraft tracks, ground speeds, altitudes, positions, winds and more that obviously the NTSB itself has poured over. It is available to us, as you know, and we can glean some very relevant insights that simply was not available to the average person back in the day.
Still nothing conclusive - And I haven't noticed anyone saying anything conclusive here, or in the 2 video links I posted. On the contrary, they both also say wait for the report before reaching any final conclusions. Worth pointing out, sometimes the NTSB/FAA themselves don't reach final conclusions, though its not likely to happen in this case.

The 2nd link I posted, the guy is a former military and civilian pilot and is very respectful and factual and lays out exactly what proceeded the collision with actual real time data - If you guys just want to trash everyone who posts a vid on this as useless speculators, why do you watch them ? Or maybe you don't and assume they are, don't know.

[Randy Haskin]

Deleted.

Cheers.

[maradamx3]

None of the current youtube commenters were at the briefing for this show, or flew there, or stood on the Air Boss stand. These commenters do NOT offer analysis. Only speculation. They were not on site with a role in the airshow, and are not informed.

Good point. An airshow pilot can generally give better speculation than some air show fan, through their experience. But if they weren't there for the brief, in the end they're guessing as well as any of the rest of us can from seeing the video and photos.
I've sat in on a few show briefs in the past, and the phrase, "Semper Gumby" (always flexible) comes to mind. But anyone walking out of the tent/room has zero excuse if they fly the show other than briefed.
We can all think of a few places where this all went sour. The Air Boss making a different call, the P-63 being out of place, the B-17 being out of place, either aircraft flying above or below the briefed speed, or any other number of things that hasn't even occurred to any of us.
But the very idea that these videos are presenting an end result? That's just silly.

So you are basically saying that unless you were a performer or airboss at that show, just keep quiet and wait for the report.
Maybe not bad sentiments, but good luck with that. Years ago I may have more or less agreed about the armchair quarterbacking spiel, but ADS-B is a game changer, and is anything but speculation and guessing.
It is raw data of aircraft tracks, ground speeds, altitudes, positions, winds and more that obviously the NTSB itself has poured over. It is available to us, as you know, and we can glean some very relevant insights that simply was not available to the average person back in the day.
Still nothing conclusive - And I haven't noticed anyone saying anything conclusive here, or in the 2 video links I posted. On the contrary, they both also say wait for the report before reaching any final conclusions. Worth pointing out, sometimes the NTSB/FAA themselves don't reach final conclusions, though its not likely to happen in this case.

The 2nd link I posted, the guy is a former military and civilian pilot and is very respectful and factual and lays out exactly what proceeded the collision with actual real time data - If you guys just want to trash everyone who posts a vid on this as useless speculators, why do you watch them ? Or maybe you don't and assume they are, don't know.

+1

[CAPFlyer]

There was a mention of the Class B airspace floor being at 3000 feet above the airport. Wouldn't that be able to be modified with the waiver as well?

In theory - yes. In reality - *highly* unlikely. It took years for Lancaster to get it's aerobatics box because of the Class B shelf overhead. There had been a few dozen people trying since the 1990s to get one and it didn't happen until like 2010 or later if I remember correctly (Len?). Don't forget - DFW's Class B is one of the *BUSIEST* in the US. It serves 3 major airports (AFW, DFW, and DAL) plus several smaller but similarly busy ones (GPM, ADS, FTW, DTO, and GKY). There's I believe 10 or 12 Towered airports under the Class B. It's pretty congested. As such, the FAA is *very* reluctant to make any modifications, even temporary, to that airspace. The FAA made a major redesign of the Class B in 2014 after almost 20 years of work as well because of the number of problems that were created by this.

So yeah, it's possible, but super unlikely they got a waiver into the Class B.

[Lynn Allen]

There was a mention of the Class B airspace floor being at 3000 feet above the airport. Wouldn't that be able to be modified with the waiver as well?

In theory - yes. In reality - *highly* unlikely. It took years for Lancaster to get it's aerobatics box because of the Class B shelf overhead. There had been a few dozen people trying since the 1990s to get one and it didn't happen until like 2010 or later if I remember correctly (Len?). Don't forget - DFW's Class B is one of the *BUSIEST* in the US. It serves 3 major airports (AFW, DFW, and DAL) plus several smaller but similarly busy ones (GPM, ADS, FTW, DTO, and GKY). There's I believe 10 or 12 Towered airports under the Class B. It's pretty congested. As such, the FAA is *very* reluctant to make any modifications, even temporary, to that airspace. The FAA made a major redesign of the Class B in 2014 after almost 20 years of work as well because of the number of problems that were created by this.

So yeah, it's possible, but super unlikely they got a waiver into the Class B.

What about the Blues or the Thunderbirds performing at an airshow? The Blues were parked on the ramp at Redbird, so they had to have a special waiver for them.

[deskpro590]

@Lynn Allen I don't recall seeing the Blues on the ramp at Redbird on Saturday. It was a WW2 show only. There was a Growler there on static however.

[p51]

So you are basically saying that unless you were a performer or airboss at that show, just keep quiet and wait for the report.

No, I'm just saying I agree with Dave's comments, who said those commenting don't have all the info the NTSB does.
I've watched a few of these videos and those who apparently have "all the info the NTSB does" (which I sort of doubt) are coming up with different end-conclusions to a degree.
I'm sure they are giving their best conclusions from the info they have, but in the end, there's no way they have all the info the NTSB does. They can't question those involved as the real investigators can (and probably already have). I pose that some are just doing it for the clicks. Others, just for the kicks?
And if you watch enough of these and read posts form other forums, a lot of it devolves into a "who's got the biggest [you know], aeronautically?" where all proclaim to have a more valid take on things than others.
We all have our own individual takes on things. We all probably have some basis for those ideas with experience beyond that of the layman.
But in the end, we're all guessing. I'm just fine with it as I'm guilty of that as well, but none of it is gospel.

[Xray]

So you are basically saying that unless you were a performer or airboss at that show, just keep quiet and wait for the report.

No, I'm just saying I agree with Dave's comments, who said those commenting don't have all the info the NTSB does.
I've watched a few of these videos and those who apparently have "all the info the NTSB does" (which I sort of doubt) are coming up with different end-conclusions to a degree.
I'm sure they are giving their best conclusions from the info they have, but in the end, there's no way they have all the info the NTSB does. They can't question those involved as the real investigators can (and probably already have). I pose that some are just doing it for the clicks. Others, just for the kicks?
And if you watch enough of these and read posts form other forums, a lot of it devolves into a "who's got the biggest [you know], aeronautically?" where all proclaim to have a more valid take on things than others.
We all have our own individual takes on things. We all probably have some basis for those ideas with experience beyond that of the layman.
But in the end, we're all guessing. I'm just fine with it as I'm guilty of that as well, but none of it is gospel.

Fair enough, I personally don't want to bicker I know you don't either ,, And I always stand ready to be corrected and educated by those many here with more knowledge than me, yourself included.
I just don't like to her it implied that I am spreading innuendo and misinformation by posting links to videos that use highly accurate raw data in their presentations, there is simply no guesswork involved.

To be accurate, Dave didn't say anything like that in his comments, in fact didn't mention the NTSB at all. I wouldn't say or imply something as goofy as having "all the info the NTSB does" ,, Since you put that in quotations, who actually said that ? I know I said the NTSB/FAA no doubt has poured over ADS-B data, lets not stretch it by claiming that I or anyone else [that I know of] has has claimed that is all they have.

[Ryan Harris]

What about the Blues or the Thunderbirds performing at an airshow? The Blues were parked on the ramp at Redbird, so they had to have a special waiver for them.

The Blues were in Pensacola for their homecoming show this last weekend, but to expand on that further, I'm not aware of any military demos performing at the CAF Dallas show since they've started it. Midland used to be a full up airshow with several military performers, but Dallas has not. The airspace constraints likely have quite a bit to do with that. That being said, even if they didn't have a waiver over 3000', they still had plenty of height to not run the fighters and bombers at the same altitude. I've been watching airshows by the same airboss for nearly 40 years, and I can't recall a single time where this has happened. The fighters are usually always overhead flying "top cover" with the bombers, and then they get individual passes while the bombers are repositioning.

[Lynn Allen]

@Lynn Allen I don't recall seeing the Blues on the ramp at Redbird on Saturday. It was a WW2 show only. There was a Growler there on static however.

My bad, I saw a video used that showed them in the background. Sorry...