Peter Dohm wrote:
wrote in message
. net...
Here's a good set of photos of the accident showing a different
perspective
than the video we've seen.
Scott Wilson

http://flickr.com/photos/lscan/sets/72157601065523576/

In the video, it really looked like the situation had already deteriorated
more than a quarter mile out, and then it just continued to get worse. (And
the assumptions which I initially made are now in serious doubt.)

That further amplifies a question that I have for Dudley:

You mentioned a distinction military and civilain pilots; and I can think of
several possible reasons: the civilians pilots are usually older, less
experienced in type, and formation flying is not part of their primary
occupation--but I suspect that there is something even more basic that I am
leaving out.

Peter



Yes. It's so basic it has a tendency to lose itself in analysis.
The military was just as aware as everyone else about the hazzards
associated with section landings. Putting multiple airplanes on the same
runway landing at the same time has obvious risks. If lead for example
blows a tire on the side the trailer is landing on, the resulting swerve
could be a real issue. Judgment and unforseen incursions on the runway
are also considerations. The list of possible issues is indeed long and
filled with pot holes that could spoil your day.
The military however has a problem we as civilians don't have. They have
a situation that involves time. In combat, there is always the issue
of getting multiple aircraft on the ground quickly and turned around,
rearmed and refueled and back into the air again. Also, there is the
issue of vulnerability. Fighters slowed down to pattern speeds and dirty
are duck soup for attacking enemy fighters.
For the reasons I've stated above, the 360 overhead approach was
initiated by the military. The objective of this type of approach is to
space close in and tight, keep the pattern speeds up, and get the birds
down as quickly as possible. Section landings became an integral part of
this scenario and was accepted and is accepted even today as a
reasonable risk factor considering extensive flight training and
awareness of the pilots doing this work.
It is worthy of note that even in the military, landing prop tailwheel
fighters this way was considered a far greater risk factor than landing
high performance nose wheel jet fighters; the reason being the loss of
visual cues for the wingman landing next to his element lead.
Now enter civilians with a few bucks and flying P51 Mustangs and you
have a situation where the time factor is no longer present in the
section landing equation. The powers that be who set up training
schedules for these pilots in these aircraft know quite well the dangers
of section landings in prop fighters. For this reason, organizations
like Warbirds of America and EAA and the T34 Formation Training Syllabus
specifically note that section landings in P51's are NOT considered to
be safe enough to warrant the risk factor.
So this is basically how it works. If you own a P51 and you have taken
the trouble to seek out and take the suggested training given by people
who know what they are doing, you don't attempt section landings in P51
aircraft.
There is no law however that MAKES the P51 owner attend these classes.
The result I believe, we have seen with this latest accident at Oshkosh.
Both of these pilots were good sticks in these airplanes. It saddens me
to know that this accident was so damn preventable simply by following
basic information and training readily available for pilots flying P51
Mustangs, and in play as we speak.
Dudley Henriques