Oshkosh fatal accident report--a question

A day or two ago the first official report on the Oshkosh Mustang
accident was issued, and not surprisingly at this point, it said
little. However, the local paper again cited a witness/pilot who put
the blame on the pilot who survived. He said that the plane in front
should not have touched down first. That makes sense to me--whoever
touches down first is going to lose speed much faster than any plane
still in the air. But then I wondered two things: 1) how would the
guy in front KNOW when the guy behind him has touched down? 2) since
the nature of the accident suggests that the pilot who died was
directly behind the other plane, why wasn't he laterally separated as
well? When two planes land in formation, it seems to me they are
always separated in two dimensions, not just one. Is there any rule
or custom concerning which side of the runway the lead plane would
take in landing?

I'm certainly not interested in apportioning guilt or in any way
dishonoring the dead, but I'd like to learn, and I'm particularly
concerned that Casey Odegaard (lead plane) is getting the blame in the
paper when the blame may not be all his.

One thing is that they should have been in constant radio comm with each
letting the other know his intentions and I can't imagin that they were
not( your question 1).Obviously there was a seperation issue and I thing you
have certainly brought up a contributing factor(2). But like you I feel it
is too early for the finger to point at Casey1
"Just Plane Noise" wrote in message
...
A day or two ago the first official report on the Oshkosh Mustang
accident was issued, and not surprisingly at this point, it said
little. However, the local paper again cited a witness/pilot who put
the blame on the pilot who survived. He said that the plane in front
should not have touched down first. That makes sense to me--whoever
touches down first is going to lose speed much faster than any plane
still in the air. But then I wondered two things: 1) how would the
guy in front KNOW when the guy behind him has touched down? 2) since
the nature of the accident suggests that the pilot who died was
directly behind the other plane, why wasn't he laterally separated as
well? When two planes land in formation, it seems to me they are
always separated in two dimensions, not just one. Is there any rule
or custom concerning which side of the runway the lead plane would
take in landing?

I'm certainly not interested in apportioning guilt or in any way
dishonoring the dead, but I'd like to learn, and I'm particularly
concerned that Casey Odegaard (lead plane) is getting the blame in the
paper when the blame may not be all his.

It's late. That should be "imagine" and "think"
"Hub Plott III" wrote in message
...
One thing is that they should have been in constant radio comm with each
letting the other know his intentions and I can't imagin that they were
not( your question 1).Obviously there was a seperation issue and I thing
you have certainly brought up a contributing factor(2). But like you I
feel it is too early for the finger to point at Casey1
"Just Plane Noise" wrote in message
...
A day or two ago the first official report on the Oshkosh Mustang
accident was issued, and not surprisingly at this point, it said
little. However, the local paper again cited a witness/pilot who put
the blame on the pilot who survived. He said that the plane in front
should not have touched down first. That makes sense to me--whoever
touches down first is going to lose speed much faster than any plane
still in the air. But then I wondered two things: 1) how would the
guy in front KNOW when the guy behind him has touched down? 2) since
the nature of the accident suggests that the pilot who died was
directly behind the other plane, why wasn't he laterally separated as
well? When two planes land in formation, it seems to me they are
always separated in two dimensions, not just one. Is there any rule
or custom concerning which side of the runway the lead plane would
take in landing?

I'm certainly not interested in apportioning guilt or in any way
dishonoring the dead, but I'd like to learn, and I'm particularly
concerned that Casey Odegaard (lead plane) is getting the blame in the
paper when the blame may not be all his.

And shouldn't the program director/tower known whether they were making a
formation landing and realized they were too close?

"Clark" wrote in message
...
Just Plane Noise wrote in
:

A day or two ago the first official report on the Oshkosh Mustang
accident was issued, and not surprisingly at this point, it said
little. However, the local paper again cited a witness/pilot who put
the blame on the pilot who survived. He said that the plane in front
should not have touched down first. That makes sense to me--whoever
touches down first is going to lose speed much faster than any plane
still in the air. But then I wondered two things: 1) how would the
guy in front KNOW when the guy behind him has touched down? 2) since
the nature of the accident suggests that the pilot who died was
directly behind the other plane, why wasn't he laterally separated as
well? When two planes land in formation, it seems to me they are
always separated in two dimensions, not just one. Is there any rule
or custom concerning which side of the runway the lead plane would
take in landing?

I'm certainly not interested in apportioning guilt or in any way
dishonoring the dead, but I'd like to learn, and I'm particularly
concerned that Casey Odegaard (lead plane) is getting the blame in the
paper when the blame may not be all his.

Ummm, the report didn't say that it was a formation landing. It seems to
me
that is an important point.


--
---
there should be a "sig" here

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:43:28 GMT, "Woody" wrote:

And shouldn't the program director/tower known whether they were making a
formation landing and realized they were too close?


I'm not sure you could tell they were headed for disaster until it was
too late. The other thing is that at this point 18/36 is under the
control of "Air Boss", who is coordinating all of the "acts." It is
rare to hear Air Boss give explicit landing clearances--he may say
"make this your last pass" or a pilot will say "this will be my last
pass", but you won't hear "you're clear to land on 36." I may be
badly mistaken, but it seems that Air Boss assumes these pilots will
land safely. Heck, during warbirds shows, maybe somebody is watching
hordes of T28s, T34s, and T6s landing on 27, but Air Boss seems to
have all he can handle with coordinating what is up in the air over
36. Ir is NOT uncommon to hear tower only belatedly acknowledge that
something has happened on a runway--there's just an awful lot to keep
track off, even with a tower full of pink shirts. Maybed things can
be done more safely, but I don't have the technical, insider knowledge
to comment intelligently on that. I'm sure NTSB will at some point.

At the point that the rear pilot realized he was much higher than the lead
pilot, his best alternative would have been to move to one side or the
other so that he was no longer over the runway and then execute a missed
approach. The reason to move away from the runway to avoid the other plane
if he decided to also execute a missed approach nd to alow him to see the
other plane. The reason that he may have been too high could be due to wake
turbulance from the front plane.

Instead he dropped his altitude which caused his plane to pick up speed and
overtake the lead plane. It is also possible that the nose of his plane
obscured the lead plane when he was above it.

JakeInHartsel

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:29:44 -0500, Just Plane Noise wrote:

A day or two ago the first official report on the Oshkosh Mustang
accident was issued, and not surprisingly at this point, it said
little. However, the local paper again cited a witness/pilot who put
the blame on the pilot who survived. He said that the plane in front
should not have touched down first. That makes sense to me--whoever
touches down first is going to lose speed much faster than any plane
still in the air. But then I wondered two things: 1) how would the
guy in front KNOW when the guy behind him has touched down? 2) since
the nature of the accident suggests that the pilot who died was
directly behind the other plane, why wasn't he laterally separated as
well? When two planes land in formation, it seems to me they are
always separated in two dimensions, not just one. Is there any rule
or custom concerning which side of the runway the lead plane would
take in landing?

I'm certainly not interested in apportioning guilt or in any way
dishonoring the dead, but I'd like to learn, and I'm particularly
concerned that Casey Odegaard (lead plane) is getting the blame in the
paper when the blame may not be all his.

"Just Plane Noise" wrote in message
...
A day or two ago the first official report on the Oshkosh Mustang
accident was issued, and not surprisingly at this point, it said
little. However, the local paper again cited a witness/pilot who put
the blame on the pilot who survived. He said that the plane in front
should not have touched down first. That makes sense to me--whoever
touches down first is going to lose speed much faster than any plane
still in the air. But then I wondered two things: 1) how would the
guy in front KNOW when the guy behind him has touched down? 2) since
the nature of the accident suggests that the pilot who died was
directly behind the other plane, why wasn't he laterally separated as
well? When two planes land in formation, it seems to me they are
always separated in two dimensions, not just one. Is there any rule
or custom concerning which side of the runway the lead plane would
take in landing?

I'm certainly not interested in apportioning guilt or in any way
dishonoring the dead, but I'd like to learn, and I'm particularly
concerned that Casey Odegaard (lead plane) is getting the blame in the
paper when the blame may not be all his.


#2 should have gone around. The lower aircraft has the right of way.
Unless you
can see that you have a clear place to land, don't.

Al G CFIAMI

Looks like he tried to do as you indicated at the last split second and tip
stalled.
Alan

"Jake" wrote in message
.. .
At the point that the rear pilot realized he was much higher than the lead
pilot, his best alternative would have been to move to one side or the
other so that he was no longer over the runway and then execute a missed
approach. The reason to move away from the runway to avoid the other
plane
if he decided to also execute a missed approach nd to alow him to see the
other plane. The reason that he may have been too high could be due to
wake
turbulance from the front plane.

Instead he dropped his altitude which caused his plane to pick up speed
and
overtake the lead plane. It is also possible that the nose of his plane
obscured the lead plane when he was above it.

JakeInHartsel

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:29:44 -0500, Just Plane Noise wrote:

A day or two ago the first official report on the Oshkosh Mustang
accident was issued, and not surprisingly at this point, it said
little. However, the local paper again cited a witness/pilot who put
the blame on the pilot who survived. He said that the plane in front
should not have touched down first. That makes sense to me--whoever
touches down first is going to lose speed much faster than any plane
still in the air. But then I wondered two things: 1) how would the
guy in front KNOW when the guy behind him has touched down? 2) since
the nature of the accident suggests that the pilot who died was
directly behind the other plane, why wasn't he laterally separated as
well? When two planes land in formation, it seems to me they are
always separated in two dimensions, not just one. Is there any rule
or custom concerning which side of the runway the lead plane would
take in landing?

I'm certainly not interested in apportioning guilt or in any way
dishonoring the dead, but I'd like to learn, and I'm particularly
concerned that Casey Odegaard (lead plane) is getting the blame in the
paper when the blame may not be all his.

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:09:08 GMT, Alan wrote:

Looks like he tried to do as you indicated at the last split second and tip
stalled.
Alan

That was after he had already chewed up the tail and it looks like there
was a prop strike right behind the canopy.

Jake

You are correct. Could be contact with #1's tail was #2's first indication
he was too close.
An awful lot happens in 1 second.
Alan

"Jake" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:09:08 GMT, Alan wrote:

Looks like he tried to do as you indicated at the last split second and
tip
stalled.
Alan

That was after he had already chewed up the tail and it looks like there
was a prop strike right behind the canopy.

Jake