![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() On 30-Jul-2007, Dudley Henriques wrote: The answer lies in the tower tape. Dudley Henriques The tower isn't in control during the show. The control is given over to the airshow's Air Boss using 133.85 (tower freqs were 118.5 and 126.6). He cleared all of the racers to land, and as I said before, after the Air Boss gave them all a blanket clearance to land, I only recall hearing Beck in Precious Metal making a position announcement, "Precious Metal, one mile final". I'm pretty certain that Chris Odegaard in "Stang" never said a word. I would guess the tower or EAA would be recording all of the radio traffic on 133.85, but I don't know that for a fact. We'll see what the NTSB report says when it comes out. Scott Wilson |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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/ Picture number two looks like a clear line of site, to me. -- Jim in NC |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ... 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 That's almost the proverbial "elephant in the room" which has been present so long that it seems to dissappear. I did not even consider the need to get assets quickly inside a ground defense perimeter and on the ground with a minimun loss of speed; and then, if necessary, relaunch an air defense as rapidly as possible. Thanks again for the much needed observations. Peter |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dudley
Our pilots used to catch the German fighters (and jets) in pattern and run their score up. Shooting fish in a barrel. Never flew an overhead pattern until after the War that I can remember. The pitch off the deck was the procedure used until after War and the accident rate doing that became excessive and they changed to the overhead. An off the deck pitch let you make a touch down after about only 15 seconds from the pitch 350 mph on approach. Throttle idle on pitch and pull up TIGHT in turn to bleed off airspeed. After 180 degrees of climbing turn your airspeed was down to where you could put down full flaps and drop gear, continuing the last 180 degrees of turn to align with runway and then touch down at normal touch down speed. A pitch up almost killed me. Came back to base just after take off with a leaking fuel cap. Made the normal tight pitch up (forgot I was heavy with fuel) and bird stalled in last 90 degrees of turn. I rudder walked the bird down and hit on right main gear and right aileron. Took around and was much more cautious next landing. If I haven't been a good and LUCKY pilot would not be here today ![]() Nice dry day here in Houston today. Big John ******************************************* On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:24:02 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote: 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gear Up, pt 6 - P-51D from 353rd FG at Raydon has a landing accident.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman | Aviation Photos | 0 | April 19th 07 03:31 AM |
Mustangs of Old, concluded - P-51D from 353rd FG at Raydon has a landing accident.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman | Aviation Photos | 0 | December 30th 06 03:52 AM |
Six aboard USS Kitty Hawk injured in F/A 18 landing accident | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 31st 05 10:50 PM |
B-17 landing accident today, Van Nuys, Calif. | Paul Hirose | Military Aviation | 21 | May 17th 04 06:07 AM |
C172S Landing accident | Greg Esres | Piloting | 53 | August 4th 03 03:44 PM |