Early Analysis: Wings Over Dallas Midair Collision WWII Airshow November 12, 2022 

Always worth the wait and to add to his comment, the takeaways for us GA and professional pilots are well worth it. Again, RIP aircrews.

An excellent comment showing the reasons I hold this channel to a higher level than the rest. Respect, knowledge and professionalism are values rarely seen in these cases, when many are fishing with clickbait. RIP to all, and thoughts to those who mourn.

The pilot of the p63 could have had a stroke or heart attack or been momentarily disabled due to g forces, who knows, after seeing the remains of the king cobra there might not be enough left of craig to even check any of this.

Agreed. I was so annoyed at the videos going up within hours declaring it was suicide, the pilot being stupid, saying that’s what happens when you let middle aged and older pilots fly, etc. So incredibly disrespectful.

May they rest in peace. How many of those who died, left spouses and dependent children behind ??

Forget what you saw. The NTSB and the FAA will obfuscate the facts. 🧐

Overtaking slower planes should have never been converging from the left to lead position. The B-17 and B-24 properly in trail were in correct parade position but too close to the show line established by the FAA. This close line of parade did not allow faster planes P-63 and P-51's to pass on the outside between the spectators and the Bombers. Because the Air Boss wanted the P-63 in the lead in front of the Bombers , a converging turn from the left was a blind turn to merge. During racing , overtaking planes must pass on the outside of the turn for visual separation. An inside turn, results in visibility lost, belly up to merge. The P-51s passed above the Bombers. All planes should have been in trail according to their speed, with faster planes trailing on a separate parallel track. My comment is not meant to be critical but a consideration for better flight demonstration planning. This is not meant to be a comparison with T-6 collisions at Cape May years ago. The faster plane should always pass on the outside of the turn. The parade can only have safety when speeds are matched in trail, and faster planes on a parallel track with overtaking planes on the outside of the turn. Better planning can prevent mishaps. Engine out, overtemps, control malfunction should have a safe exit plan and safe emergency area for landing. Let's keep WAR BIRDS ALIVE by learning from mistakes made. Solemn condolence to those surprised by sudden loss. A tragic waste of precious resources and gifted manhours dedicated to the preservation of rare planes, flying for everyone's benefit.

I recommend watching blancolirio’s coverage, based on your comments. He was friends with one of the crew, shows no video of the crash, and has a pretty solid early analysis.

I was thinking the same thing -- thanks for not showing the aftermath.

@@bruceleithead475 is there (or should there be) an altitude deconfliction in addition to lateral deconfliction for parade events with dissimilar aircraft?

To ride, or to actually pilot?

Sometimes the truth hurts.

I agree, his experience and professionalism come through in this video.

Not his first rodeo. Just as Chris Stricklin.

What's respectful got to do with facts. The pilot of the P63 made a mistake. End of story.

Hi implies that the P63 pilot was at fault, to which I agree.

@@larryslone65 correct, as simple as rolling left a little to late to end on the line, this is a judgement matter, any pilot must judge roll reversal timing with no other cue available. Once the left bank was established, the visibility to any other trafic to his right at that altitude is lost. When you have a right crosswind, you must delay the roll reversal a little, hard to judge, but different if you practice with no crosswind. CFI I here.

When you turn left to final to intercept the localizer, you have to do the same problem, with a right crosswind, otherwise you end up on the left of the localizer requiring additional correction and delaying to establish a stabilized approach, important in IMC. Crosswinds are different every time, so repetition does not help, it remains a judgement call. But intercepting a localizer, you have the needle deflection to help, nothing like this on a visual only alignment. That is what I meant with cue.

I appreciated how his analysis was not emotional. I am not trying to be cold but sometimes the facts of a situation are not all that flattering. There was a good chance the pilot just didn't see the B-17 in time. There is so much that can be assumed and none off us have any evidence. It is not about good guys and bad guys. It was just "what happened based on the evidence." That is what separates the pilots from the airplane drivers. If steps can be taken to prevent this from ever happening at an airshow again this loss will not have been in vain. It just hurts bad to see a labor of love vanish like that.

B.S. EVERYONE who was on the pre show brief, including the FAA, are guilty as heck... I've never seen such a roughshod show in my 50 years,,, This airshow was NOT properly managed.,

Maybe a shotgun blast caused Craig to veer into the b17

I didn't even know that show lines were a thing. This is a good reminder that it is important to be careful about having opinions on things you don't fully understand

It’s curious how commentators are so hyper-sensitive against saying it LOOKS like P-63 pilot error. Is that not what it looks like? That’s what it looks like to me. So I’ll go ahead and say that. Pilot error.

@@CorePathway oh, we are not allowed to form a theory based upon observation and logic. We are peons. Eye witness has always been critical evidence but not this time. They will use every shred of footage by peons to make a determination, but we are forbidden to even guess when watching it.

I don't think they were flying in formation

@@N17C1 they were

@@matte2160 their speeds were too different for that.

@@matte2160 No they weren't. The fighters were flying a different pattern than the heavies.

@@N17C1 Correct! Planes flying criss-cross furiously at low altitude.... That's an air-disaster waiting ⏳to happen.

How does one become a Former EMT? Didja wake up one day and just forgot how to save lives? Sorry, just a little dark humor. Thanks for being there for people in need.

My heart breaks for the crews who had absolutely no control over their fate. The 1994 crash of a B-52H at Fairchild was equally heartbreaking. The pilot in the B-52 incident was fully responsible for the deaths of his crew members.

Since you were ATC, you know that the P63 did not allow for compression. P63 lost situational awareness with horrific results.

@@dashriprock4308 Air Traffic Control experience is not a basis for determining if the P63 pilot factored in aircraft compression.

@@larryslone65 Well, compression does mean that the aircraft are getting too close to each other. Get the gist?

@@larryslone65 what? Nonsense.

That's what I see. Fighter broke it's altitude, speed, and flight plan. He should have simply pulled up when he lost sight and known bombers were there lower and to his right. I'm guessing medical or 'pilot error' as the NTSB will say probably. Very SAD.

No stall in any form. The P63 was going too fast and too much under the pilot's control for that possibility.

@@larryslone65 no evidence of a stall. He was at a high speed and rate of descent before any significant banking or final contact.

No they weren’t. The P63 was in a descent from his assigned altitude.

check the Flightradar24 data - the P-63 abruptly climbed 500’ before beginning a rapid descent. Also watch the parking lot video where the two P-51s precede the B-17 in flying over the camera, all appear to be at around 500’. AGL The only one who knows where everyone was supposed to be is the air boss. but a new plan for the bomber parade was initiated this year.

A recent air collision over the Denver area seems to emphasize this.

@mandellorian He was doing airboss things. I was next to the stand. I think it was just a tragic 5 second or so mistake in judgment, compounded by some reduced separation. There were far fewer planes this year and it may be a pretty simple explanation that he thought there was enough room for them and brought them down lower.

@@MetroplexAerials there was a report the air boss instructed the P63 to return to its pattern behind the P51 and overtake the B17 to do so. Meaning to pass up the B17 rather than follow behind it. The high rate of descent by the P63 was odd. Instead of a slower airspeed to make the turn at the correct altitude behind the P51.

@@Outtahereasap I was there and I am of the opinion that that much discussed audio blip is lacking in context and makes no sense from my vantage point. The three fighters were transitioning from Echelon right and high entering the turn-around, to trail in a descent to the show line. The P-63 was #3 in the formation.

annie, can you hear me, annie....annie can you hear me!!

You are part of the flight family just by participating in these videos, welcome and thank you for your thoughts

Agreed, be it the skyboss or planners, you have big and slow and small and fast aircraft with over 150 knots speed difference in nearly the same altitude space, little separation and even less margin of error. The blood of these fine men are on the hands of whoever came up with this cockamamie flight pattern.

@@colin-nekritz I highly doubt a 150kt difference in speed

@@colin-nekritz well said. I find it perplexing that all these pilots with all their expertise and experience over the years, would not have vetoed any plan that had them flying the same altitude. As soon as I saw the vast number of planes buzzing around at this airshow I just felt a Clusterf..k was imminent.

@@colin-nekritz 50 knots

@@57Jimmy - they were not flying at the same altitude. The fighter dropped from his higher correct altitude from his separate inner circle flight path and hit the bomber that he should have known was there. Once, he lost sight of the mustangs he was following, he should have pulled up and away safely till he safely rejoin the parade at a lower speed too.

Bingo he was enjoying his plane and phased out. We all do it get it the car and start thinking about other things and wonder how we got to our destination because our mind was elsewhere. He was told to speed up and hit it.

My thought exactly! In a video from 2021-it appeared that the fighters flew at an altitude of a couple hundred feet higher than the bomber flights. That would have been the most logical safety procedures to have.

A cell phone alarm within 100 feet would have helped.

@@TIMEtoRIDE900 I’m no expert in the business, but I’m thinking with the P-63 going so fast, it would need far greater distance than 100 feet alarm don’t you think?

Experienced old man. With Oldman reflexes and reactions

@@olderthanyoucali8512 Reflexes wouldn't have helped once he banked there is know way to see that dark green bomber in in a P-63 cockpit.

He told him to get back on track behind the P51 and forward of the bomber. He did not tell him to descend on top of it. He descended from a higher altitude. If he followed instructions he would have to see the bomber before he could overtake it. It was the air boss job to tell him to get back on track of the pattern.

"Losing sight of""

More than likely. Doesn’t make sense why he went into a high rate of descent from his pattern assigned altitude, though.

This is America. Of course, it will be capitalized on. ☹️

Exactly... rear pilot was way off course and should have known where the bombers parade to his right was and pulled up and out of the parade circles until he could safely rejoin. These are highly scripted and practiced by pros.

That struck me too. Lateral space is one thing, but you would think vertical space would also be built into the pattern. Maybe they were, and that's what got messed up.

Typically the fighters are flown in groups of three or in-line, at higher altitude in both cases. This is more readily evident from the better coverage of the 2021 airshow video coverage. It appears but remains to be confirmed that the P-63 was in a fast descending flight path while turning to port, but at this stage, we cannot know why this might have been so.

@@dougbright8120 The P-51 ahead of the P-63 was also in a fast descending flight path, and the one ahead of him. Both of those aircraft came down to BELOW 500ft during their passes, which is what the P-63 was following. So yes, BIG questions around why you would have them at the same altitude as the bombers.

@@LizMatzelle they were descending forward of the lead B17. The P63 was behind the B17 so shouldn’t have descended until forward like the P51 did

P-63 driver screwed the pooch...

I agree there was something distracting the pilots focus. His deviation and high speed descent is really off for some reason. You should share your observations with the authorities

Thank you. I have the same questions. The flight tracking data I found on line seems to show a high speed descent by the P63 from a higher altitude directly toward the B17.

So he was the pilot and did something stupid because he what. Did not know the B17 was in the lap also. He was told to pass it. The first thing he should have done is locate the B17. He killed five people because he as a pilot passes a plane which he did not look for or see.

The pilot may have made mistakes, but there's absolutely no reason for that B-17 to have been there. That's not on the pilots, that's on the airboss and tower. Even people who aren't pilots or involved in any way could have worked out that the fighters and the B-17 were essentially on a collision course.

@@jamesofallthings3684 B17 was exactly where it was supposed to be. P63 overshot his turn.

@@jamesofallthings3684 The B-17 was right where he was supposed to be as the bombers were following a teardrop pattern at the north of runways 31 and 13 and the fighters a teardrop pattern to the south of 32 and 23. The P-63 was straying out of his pattern and collided with the bomber as he was banking to stay on his side of the pattern.

I agree with this. That B-17 shouldn’t have been there. And now we add “complacency” to the mix of contributing factors. No computer was telling them that they were on a collision course. Low tech planes under relatively low tech conditions, you gotta use your noodle more. I DON’T put all the blame on the AirBoss because in my opinion the B-17 also had an obligation to protect their own plane by watching to make sure nothing was around them flying into them. They relied too heavily on someone else to protect their airspace. That’s fine in a 747 monitored by modern tech and ATC but that’s just not practical in a 1940’s aircraft that isn’t monitored by ATC tech because of air show exceptions and the very tight airspace of the show itself. You gotta work with what you DO have not what you don’t have and they had windows. Having only a crew of 5, I doubt anyone was manned at the gunner windows including that top turret. I’m all for flying vintage planes but I’m also in favor of fully understanding their designs, capabilities and limitations while flying them. If they are designed to have a crew of 10 then you can’t change something in that original design without accepting and/or compensating for the additional risks now created in the new conditions in which the plane and crew are expected to perform. I really don’t understand why this isn’t being discussed as one of the contributing factors. Maybe it’s ego because usually it’s the old school pilots preaching about how complacent the younger pilots are on things like an airbus that almost flies itself. Now, we have a situation where computers are taken out of the equation and we get a multiple human error fail resulting in loss of 6 lives and complete loss of two aircraft. That’s pretty bad. The only saving grace was that it didn’t kill or injure the public on the ground. But, it was pretty close and it could have. It’s truly an unacceptable situation and demands improvement.