• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

6 Lives and Historic B-17 and P-63 lost in Dallas

Oh, please. Toeing the line. Think soldiers standing on parade, obediently keeping their place in the rank.

And I don't think you mean "eschewed". Or if you do, I don't understand the context.
 
I'm tired of this "towing the line" thing. It's not a spelling error, it's a fundamental failure to understand the metaphor. It's as bad as "free reign". And I genuinely don't understand the use of the word "eschewed" in that context.
 
Oh, please. Toeing the line. Think soldiers standing on parade, obediently keeping their place in the rank.

Fair enough, although I don't much care which I write it... everyone knows what I mean!

And I don't think you mean "eschewed". Or if you do, I don't understand the context.


Shunned then, it means the same thing...

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/shunned
avoided by people out of dislike, mistrust, disapproval, etc.:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/eschew
to abstain or keep away from; shun; avoid:
 
Last edited:
OK, I've never come across the word being used in that context. More of a "meat on Fridays" sort of thing.
 
The NTSB Open Public Docket is out on this ...

... and it is not looking good for the Airboss!

Here are Juan Browne (Blancolirio) and Scott Purdue (Flywire) doing the analysis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc4FP4VZOd8

Video is 50 minutes. Any true aviation enthusiast will want to watch the whole thing, but here is a very brief summary for those who don't

- The crossover maneuver was not briefed, and was brought up "on the fly". This is an absolute no-no.

- The pattern had the bombers approaching on the 1000 ft line (as in 1000ft from the crowd) with the fighters having to cross that line to get to their 500ft line. To this I say WTAF!!

- The Airboss left deconfliction up to the pilots. Again, WTAF!

- The Airboss was very badly positioned to see the relative altitudes and distances.

- The pilot of the P-63 only had a five second window before impact in which he could have seen the B-17, and that would have been out of his side window, while he was looking through the front window at the P-51 ahead of him to line-up on the 500ft line.

- There were a couple of previous incidents at an earlier airshow involving the this Airboss and his father, the previous Airboss for this show, which were not briefed, and which involved conflicting flight paths. (Scott Purdue explains here https://youtu.be/Nc4FP4VZOd8?t=834 )

- The Airboss had no experience in formation flying and no certification in control of formation flying. He uses non-standard, confusing and conflicting language to direct the display.
 
... and it is not looking good for the Airboss!

Here are Juan Browne (Blancolirio) and Scott Purdue (Flywire) doing the analysis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc4FP4VZOd8

Video is 50 minutes. Any true aviation enthusiast will want to watch the whole thing, but here is a very brief summary for those who don't

- The crossover maneuver was not briefed, and was brought up "on the fly". This is an absolute no-no.

- The pattern had the bombers approaching on the 1000 ft line (as in 1000ft from the crowd) with the fighters having to cross that line to get to their 500ft line. To this I say WTAF!!

- The Airboss left deconfliction up to the pilots. Again, WTAF!

- The Airboss was very badly positioned to see the relative altitudes and distances.

- The pilot of the P-63 only had a five second window before impact in which he could have seen the B-17, and that would have been out of his side window, while he was looking through the front window at the P-51 ahead of him to line-up on the 500ft line.

- There were a couple of previous incidents at an earlier airshow involving the this Airboss and his father, the previous Airboss for this show, which were not briefed, and which involved conflicting flight paths. (Scott Purdue explains here https://youtu.be/Nc4FP4VZOd8?t=834 )

- The Airboss had no experience in formation flying and no certification in control of formation flying. He uses non-standard, confusing and conflicting language to direct the display.
I'm listening to it now.
I'm halfway in, and it really doesn't look good for the Air boss.
 
Here is an excellent analysis from the "Pilot Debrief" YouTube channel.

This YouTuber is a former USAF Fighter Pilot called "Hoover" (which I presume is his callsign - I don't know his actual name).

Here are his credentials...

"I served in the USAF for twenty years where I flew the F-15E Strike Eagle. I also participated in an exchange program with the USMC flying the F/A-18D Hornet. One of my last assignments in the Air Force was the Wing Chief of Safety at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina. I flew for a Part 135 operator right after retiring from the Air Force and now I fly for a major airline. "

Hoover is fast becoming another of my "go-to" guys for aviation mishaps, particularly as he possesses the skill of explaining complicated things in simple terms.

 
The NTSB report is out. As I expected, they have hung the primary responsibility for this accident on the Air boss


Probable Cause of the In-Flight Collision
The air boss' and air show event organizer's lack of an adequate, prebriefed aircraft separation plan for the air show performance, relying instead on the air boss' real-time deconfliction directives and the see-and-avoid strategy for collision avoidance.
Also causal factors are listed, beginning at 6:02
Contributing factors are listed, beginning at 6:18
Safety recommendations are listed, beginning at 6:37
 
The NTSB report is out. As I expected, they have hung the primary responsibility for this accident on the Air boss


Probable Cause of the In-Flight Collision
The air boss' and air show event organizer's lack of an adequate, prebriefed aircraft separation plan for the air show performance, relying instead on the air boss' real-time deconfliction directives and the see-and-avoid strategy for collision avoidance.
Also causal factors are listed, beginning at 6:02
Contributing factors are listed, beginning at 6:18
Safety recommendations are listed, beginning at 6:37
Hoover's analysis was pretty spot-on.
 
If all you take from the report is "it was the air boss's fault" then you haven't read it properly. The NTSB was critical of the culture and processes that allow air bosses to do the things that this air boss did. Most of the recommendations focused on getting some sort of regulatory framework in place.
 
If all you take from the report is "it was the air boss's fault" then you haven't read it properly. The NTSB was critical of the culture and processes that allow air bosses to do the things that this air boss did. Most of the recommendations focused on getting some sort of regulatory framework in place.
No-one here has done that. I certainly haven't...

"....they have hung the primary responsibility for this accident on the Air boss"
"Also causal factors are listed, beginning at 6:02"
"Contributing factors are listed, beginning at 6:18"

If you have a point, I'm not sure what it is.... or are you just stirring the pot for the sake of doing so?
 
No-one here has done that. I certainly haven't...

"....they have hung the primary responsibility for this accident on the Air boss"
"Also causal factors are listed, beginning at 6:02"
"Contributing factors are listed, beginning at 6:18"

If you have a point, I'm not sure what it is.... or are you just stirring the pot for the sake of doing so?
My point is that you seem to be saying "it was the air boss's fault" and leaving it at that. However, if you read the actual report, which goes into a lot more depth than the 10 minute video, you'll see that this is (as most aircraft accidents are) much more complex than just saying "x did it".

If you look at the recommendations they made, there isn't one that says "stop this air boss from running a show ever again". There are several, however, aimed at making sure that any air boss in the future knows what they are doing.
 
My point is that you seem to be saying "it was the air boss's fault" and leaving it at that.
Am I? If all you take from my posts on this is issue is "it was the air boss's fault" and leaving it at that. , then you haven't read them properly.

Post #11
"https://internationalskeptics.com/f...-and-p-63-lost-in-dallas.362775/post-13949600"

There are a number of irregularities that are being investigated.
Not just the air boss then!

1. The show's Air Boss (Russ Royce) was not very experienced - just a private pilot with no experience in flight operations or warbird operations, who appears to have landed the job because of his father Ralph Royce.
This is a criticism of the system, one that allowed this person to ascend to a vital, safety-related job without any apparent training and qualifications

2. There should not have been passengers on the B-17. FAA rules specify minimum crew only for display flying. For a B-17 that is pilot, copilot and perhaps one observer, but no-one else, even if they were experienced pilots.
This is a criticism of the regulations

3. The briefing (given by the Air Boss) was deficient, making no mention at all of "display lane assignments" or "altitude separation"
This is a criticism of the airboss
4. According to the display audio, the Air Boss instructed the pilot of the P-63 to accelerate to get ahead of the B-17.
This is also a criticism of the airboss

Post #40
"https://internationalskeptics.com/f...-and-p-63-lost-in-dallas.362775/post-13989351"

....it seems there is a culture of "toeing the line" in the whole Commemorative Air Force organization. This is not unlike the "normalization of deviance" culture that was so pervasive in NASA prior to the Challenger and Columbia disasters.... People who raised safety concerns were sidelined and mocked for doing so. Morton-Thiokol engineer Roger Boisjoly, the man who fought to stop the Challenger launch, was eschewed by his colleagues after the disaster, effectively for being right, and showing up the incompetence of the decision makers.

This is a criticism of the culture at the CAF and in the display flying community

However, if you read the actual report, which goes into a lot more depth than the 10 minute video, you'll see that this is (as most aircraft accidents are) much more complex than just saying "x did it".

If you look at the recommendations they made, there isn't one that says "stop this air boss from running a show ever again". There are several, however, aimed at making sure that any air boss in the future knows what they are doing.
I read the report, and watched the video.

I have been often criticised here for "just posting a video" and not summarizing it or indicating which parts of the video were relevant, for the benefit of those who have a thing against videos, or those who lack the attention span to watch them. So, in this case, I put cue points in the post of the salient points its findings. No enough for you apparently. :rolleyes:

Frankly, I think you're just making something out of nothing. I'm unsure if you're doing so intentionally.
 
Last edited:
The Air Boss should have been working closely with the Fire Chief, the Water Captain, and the Earth Director. Elemental compartmentalization leads to poor planning and unoriginal game mechanics.
 
Back
Top Bottom