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

[p51buff]

Hey, did you know Juan Browne once flew "a flawless single engine (Instrument Landing System) into LAX with crummy weather – 500 feet broken/mist."?

If not, you can read all about it in his own words from an email to the Grass Valley Union here: https://www.theunion.com/news/grass-val ... cdb94.html



Where DO we find such men?? :eyeroll:

[Xray]

If there are inaccuracies, why not point them out, if in fact he won't allow discussion on his channel ?

Seems to me there is a fair amount of discussion there, with many pilots/ATC.

How can I say this delicately?

Anyone who really knows what happened is part of the NTSB investigation and possible upcoming lawsuits, is not posting on the internet, and won't be talking unless under oath or with counsel present. Anyone who is claiming they know what happened doesn't, and is just speculating.

There is some excellent information in this thread by some very distinguished pilots, notice that they are choosing their words very carefully, and the gist of their posts comes down to "Wait for the investigation, until then we don't really know what happened." I have a feeling that, like me, they know quite a bit more than what they are willing to post and :respect: to them if so.


Sorry, but I won't say more.

Don't be sorry, no need to dramatize. If you want to close your eyes and ears and prefer everyone to remain mute until the report, that is your choice.
Alot of the speculation from day 1 is appearing to be pretty accurate, there really aren't a whole lot of factors involved here. The airspace was conflicted resulting in a horrific crash, in lieu of any mechanical problems or in air medical emergencies [so far no reason to believe either is a factor], the cause of that conflict is either pilot error or control error, of combination of the 2 ,, And at this point, control is looking the most likely.

[Kyleb]

... in lieu of any mechanical problems or in air medical emergencies [so far no reason to believe either is a factor], the cause of that conflict is either pilot error or control error, of combination of the 2 ,, And at this point, control is looking the most likely.

So what is there to talk about?

[Xray]

... in lieu of any mechanical problems or in air medical emergencies [so far no reason to believe either is a factor], the cause of that conflict is either pilot error or control error, of combination of the 2 ,, And at this point, control is looking the most likely.

So what is there to talk about?

Thats up to you, why are you asking me ?
I think its pretty obvious that airboss screwed up [not just because of the recent release of show audio], I inferred as much weeks ago.
But by all means, if you'd rather hold your breath and wait for the report, feel free. Why do you even follow this topic if no one is allowed a reasoned opinion ?

[Tim Savage]

... in lieu of any mechanical problems or in air medical emergencies [so far no reason to believe either is a factor], the cause of that conflict is either pilot error or control error, of combination of the 2 ,, And at this point, control is looking the most likely.

So what is there to talk about?

Thats up to you, why are you asking me ?
I think its pretty obvious that airboss screwed up [not just because of the recent release of show audio], I inferred as much weeks ago.
But by all means, if you'd rather hold your breath and wait for the report, feel free. Why do you even follow this topic if no one is allowed a reasoned opinion ?

Why do you feel that you need to know so bad that you continue to drag this thread on? If you have it all figured out why are YOU following this thread? If the people that have flown with this airboss, have flown warbirds in airshows, are involved in the warbird industry, or maybe were actually at the briefing are willing to wait for the final report, why can't you? This accident has no bearing on your life except curiosity. It does have an impact on a lot of the rest of us, not the least is that we may have been friends with the parties involved.

If you are ever involved in a highly publicized warbird accident like I have, you will understand why so many are tired of the rampant speculation on the internet without all the facts. Stop and recognize that to many of us these are real people with families we know. Not just people we saw photos of on social media or saw fly at an airshow once in a while. Can't we have enough respect for all of them to at least wait for the final report?

[aerovin]

After hearing the recording: if the lead airplane in a flight of three reports ‘traffic in sight,’ what assurance is there that all three pilots have the traffic in sight? I understand that this works in a tight formation but if the flight is strung out over a mile or more, is it really a flight of three?

"In trail" is still a formation, and they had just been instructed to switch to trail, which is fairly standard at the WOD show for switching to photo passes.

So, when the lead pilot calls "in sight" for the in trail formation spread out over a mile or so, and the presumption is that the "in sight" means visual separation, then what internal mechanism is there so that third guy a mile back has the traffic in sight? Asking seriously; I have no idea.

[Kyleb]

... in lieu of any mechanical problems or in air medical emergencies [so far no reason to believe either is a factor], the cause of that conflict is either pilot error or control error, of combination of the 2 ,, And at this point, control is looking the most likely.

So what is there to talk about?

Thats up to you, why are you asking me ?

You, my friend, are the one who seems thirsty for information which isn't forthcoming. No matter what questions you ask or what assumptions you form, nobody's going to know *the* answer until the report comes out.

I can wait.

[Matt Gunsch]

After hearing the recording: if the lead airplane in a flight of three reports ‘traffic in sight,’ what assurance is there that all three pilots have the traffic in sight? I understand that this works in a tight formation but if the flight is strung out over a mile or more, is it really a flight of three?

"In trail" is still a formation, and they had just been instructed to switch to trail, which is fairly standard at the WOD show for switching to photo passes.

So, when the lead pilot calls "in sight" for the in trail formation spread out over a mile or so, and the presumption is that the "in sight" means visual separation, then what internal mechanism is there so that third guy a mile back has the traffic in sight? Asking seriously; I have no idea.

Scott, normally lead speaks for the flight, if they are in show formation the wingman cannot take their eyes off their leader for a moment. standard practice is for a frequency change is to open up the formation so the wingmen can go eyes down to set up their radio. Normally all you hear from the wingman are check in calls, such a 2, 3, 4. In this case, even though the 63 was far in trail, he was still eyes on his lead, or in his case, the 2nd P-51, I doubt he could have taken his eyes off the other 51 long enough to spot the 17.

[Xray]

You, my friend, are the one who seems thirsty for information which isn't forthcoming. No matter what questions you ask or what assumptions you form, nobody's going to know *the* answer until the report comes out.

I can wait.

Whatever.

[RyanShort1]

Whatever.

Take a hint, please. Curiosity is fine, until it becomes pushy and annoying.

It's not that people have things to hide, it's that there's a point at which there is a nexus between information that is best left to the the investigators. respect for the families, and legal requirements that means it's just best for a number of involved participants to have more respect for the process than others would like. I've probably said too much myself, but it's super annoying to see the false accusations and ill-informed speculations that really do hurt real people who played a part in this without malice or guilt.

[Xray]

Whatever.

Take a hint, please. Curiosity is fine, until it becomes pushy and annoying.

It's not that people have things to hide, it's that there's a point at which there is a nexus between information that is best left to the the investigators. respect for the families, and legal requirements that means it's just best for a number of involved participants to have more respect for the process than others would like. I've probably said too much myself, but it's super annoying to see the false accusations and ill-informed speculations that really do hurt real people who played a part in this without malice or guilt.

Suggest you mind your own business and if you find me pushy and annoying, simply put me on ignore instead of pontificating.

[RyanShort1]

Suggest you mind your own business and if you find me pushy and annoying, simply put me on ignore instead of pontificating.

Brother, we all love warbirds... let's not be enemies.

Redbird is my home airport. I saw the thing happen. I picked up some of the wreckage and handed it in to the NTSB folks.

You specifically want me to mind my own business, but you won't hear others telling you the same with regards to the direction your questions were going? I get that we all have curiosity, and I've contributed to this thread, but follow your own advice.

[p51]

Brother, we all love warbirds... let's not be enemies.

That is inevitable.
Any time a loss like this happens, it never fails:
1. Folks want complete answers immediately
2. Some speculate in the absence of hard data
3. Others caution against speculation
4. Hard data wants become stronger
5. Others tell those demanding answers to shut up
6. The whole thing becomes a schwantz-measuring contest
7. Much later, the NTSB releases their report which doesn't have nearly as much info to satisfy those who wanted detailed info (and some say- probably correctly- that not much can be learned from it). But once it's released, some go back to the original speculation and find that a lot of that was accurate all along

[RyanShort1]

Brother, we all love warbirds... let's not be enemies.

That is inevitable.
Any time a loss like this happens, it never fails:
5. Others tell those demanding answers to shut up

Just to be clear, there's a difference between telling others to shut up, and explaining why some questions are unreasonable and unhelpful. I'm all for free speech, AND prudence.

[Xray]

Suggest you mind your own business and if you find me pushy and annoying, simply put me on ignore instead of pontificating.

Brother, we all love warbirds... let's not be enemies.

Redbird is my home airport. I saw the thing happen. I picked up some of the wreckage and handed it in to the NTSB folks.

You specifically want me to mind my own business, but you won't hear others telling you the same with regards to the direction your questions were going? I get that we all have curiosity, and I've contributed to this thread, but follow your own advice.

Not sure what "questions" you are referring to, I have noticed that you silencers have a tendency to attack the messenger whilst ignoring the message.
p51 for instance attacked this Juan guy on a totally unrelated matter for having the nerve to post airboss audio, that is ludicrous and juvenile if you ask me. You specifically call me pushy and annoying then say "C'mon man, lets be bros !" ,, Seems to me your best course would be put me on ignore, thats what I do to pushy and annoying people.

I have done very little speculating if any, not exactly sure what you guys are on about - If you want a total bubble of silence, the internet generally is not the best place to find it.

Tim Savage was eloquent and heartfelt in his post, which I missed and just now read. Again, not sure what he finds offensive. I'm not peddling rumors or innuendo, and again, a total wall of silence is a bit much to ask for, especially when new factors are introduced such as airboss audio which we all knew existed and all knew it was a matter of time before it was released.