'Wings Over Dallas' Mid Air Collision Report - famousescapegames.com

‘Wings Over Dallas’ Mid Air Collision Report

Views: 827825
Like: 25545
LINKS: (Correction: 37mm cannon)
Flight Track Overlay:
ADSB Data:
P-63 Walkaround:
Learning The Finer Points:
Theme: “Weightless” Aram Bedrosian


  1. Well, apparently the pilot apparently should’ve been trained in such situations and flying the plane and the blind spots understanding that it turned out it was pilot, error, misjudgment, and even possibly other influences so with an experience pilot, he would deem to not pass or come near the other aircraft seeing that His line of sight would be compromised.

  2. So an experience pilot would take that into consideration, knowing that there would not be any grounds for any kind of danger or loss of life or chances that would end fatality… No excuses.

  3. So, finding some scapegoat reason, should be out of the question.

  4. Situational Werness should not be a scapegoat reason.

  5. I agree, no altitude separation…. A pilot would only be said to be experienced in his aircraft knowing this, a romp in the pilot seat should never have been dangerous in any kind of way, shape or form, and it seemed to know that the pilot was over his head way over his head, and a maneuver, he was trying to create…

    He should’ve aborted no harm no foul.

  6. The other aircraft was not going the speed of the P 63 and never did the maneuver of the P 63

  7. Guys, we know what happened. Weather was no problem. No issue with Weather or maintenance of aircraft.

  8. Guys I think we know what happened…. Unless someone has clout to find an illegitimate reason and make it legitimate

  9. I am upset for those who have passed… they should have had the right to walk away from a wonderful experience!

  10. My Condolences to you Juan and to all family, friends, colleagues, and fans.

  11. Guess they were showing off and didn't really know what they were doing. Sad Their ego got the best of them

  12. Sad day. Thoughts to the family and friends of those lost in this tragic accident.

  13. This was really well explained. As a non-pilot it helps immensely to understand the issues. Terrible tragic accident, RIP all. Thank you

  14. My man I have watched a number of these analysts trying to describe what happened,

    By far you are number one and tell Inez and showing us and it was really what happened , No one else even comes close to your analyzation

    You get an
    (A) for preparation
    (A) for analyzation
    (A) For illustration
    (A) for thoroughness
    (A) for delivery

    I wish there was a higher mark I could give you for illustration above an A

    You won by far all five categories on this video

    This is a better sweep then when Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert swept the Academy Awards in all five major categories, for the 1934 movie it happened one night.

    Give this man his Oscar for this video

  15. Wow! I don't know anything about flying a plane. Your video really was very informational and put how a tragic thing like this could occur. My condolences for your loss, and for their families and friends. Sad. 😢

  16. A terrible situation, yes there were mistakes, but practices and performances need to be followed. RIP!

  17. Really well done, Juan. Super respectful towards the fallen airmen while giving us all a great run down of the facts so far 🙏🏻

  18. Thank you Juan for the excellent explanation of how and why this collision occurred and how it could have been avoided. I could see and hear the pain you were feeling as you described the incident.

  19. I'm sorry for the loss of your friend. Doing this video was very difficult I'm sure. These guys are to be commemorated for their passion for keeping these birds out there for people to see.

  20. 1 man doesn't pay attn, 5 others violently die. I'm not blaming the pilot of the Cobra or the AirBoss at the show but that airshow was a disaster waiting to happen. Total chaos.

  21. I agree, I can't understand the reason to parade all A/C at the same altitude (especially those with high speed difference) It does appear the P-63 was concentrating on keeping formation with the Two Mustangs and lost sight of the B-17. If so, he should have broke off and climbed Being too low to slide under as you explained very well. He probably thought he passed the Fortress but he was moving much faster than the Mustangs as they flew overhead…. I am amazed at the Airboss instructing a change in altitude and allow a Pass at that point(A final turn entering the Parade route) It would seem all pilots are assigned an Altitude in the holding Pattern and maintain that altitude through out the Show and receive clearance while returning to land….

  22. Thanks for providing the most cogent explanation on the web of this tragedy.

  23. Good riddance.. These things were used to incinerate hundreds of thousands of women, children and old men..

  24. After watching the video of the crash numerous times. I was hoping the Airboss would of been able to alert the P-63 to breakaway. But then I realized at that speed and view point of the Airboss it would of been impossible. These Pilots fate were sealed that day, RIP.

  25. Juan, Sorry for the loss of your friend, and I share your opinion presented at 17:08 Why was this briefed with no altitude sep. ? It would be so easy, with the bombers at 500ft., to give the fighters a 700ft hard deck, as demonstrated around 2.00

  26. Outstanding analysis of a truly emotional and traumatic accident. As you have shown you understand the fundamental aspects of this (and many other crashes), have you ever been called as an "expert witness" during any litigation resulting from any of these accidents?

  27. Excellent explanation. Condolences for your loss. Clearly errors not only in execution but planning. So much to learn from this accident

  28. When you allow a fighter plane to buzz the bomber, accident will always happen. It was lucky that the debris did not drop on top of the spectators. Accident like this can be prevented.

  29. Thank you. I learned a lot from your video. RIP to all involved.

  30. I agree with you that the flight path setup seems irresponsible. If they intend to keep doing these shows, they need to do better planning. RIP to all those that lost their lives and condolences to their families and friends.

  31. An excellent analysis of a sad event, Juan. Your knowledge of aviation is essential in understanding the aircraft involved and the rules for flying in formation.

  32. The most frightening videos ever and totally got me sick and upset. 😔😢🙏✝️💓

  33. RIP Len and all the others who lost their lives in this tragic accident. Thank you Juan, for giving an understandable breakdown of this incident.

  34. love your demonstration. I would never have figured out how you can miss a B17. so unfortunate

  35. "Im looking forward to Marty's apology video." Is what I would say if I didn't believe Marty was a self absorbed sociopath.
    Good on you Mick for coming forth with this.

  36. Why is there so many planes in the air at that time. so sad they didnt have a chance. F…

  37. I was there. My video has been featured in many news reports

  38. Total bummer to lose these old pros , they put on such great shows. RIP.

  39. I think Craig tried to turn harder to avoid the B17 because of the deadline. Had the deadline not been in play, he may have exited the turn and gone wings level to avoid the crash. Something tells me that heavily drilled well enforced line may have had a negative psychological effect.

  40. Just a quick look tells a crowded airspace above that field. The other fighters look like they are more distant to the bomber but it's still too crowded looking.
    There is a window of time whereas the level flying Aircobra should've seen the fort heading in the opposite direction but was apparently distracted even before being affected by his blind spot / wing . . . "situational awareness" as you say. You know you can roll over a bit and see where you're going to turn to before you even start the turn. . There still seems a window during banking the turn where he should've spotted him and straightened to cross the spectators rather than collide . . . unless he was looking down the other side of his fuselage behind the Fort . . . for either Mustangs or the Fort maybe?.. . . Crowded airspace.even if different paths. Replicating a combat "furball" is a dumb plan.and not for every pilot no matter experience at an airline career. RIP

  41. One thing I LOVED about the Norns, was the fact that they themselves followed the archetype for many interpretations/embodiments of fate found in so many different cultures. The Maiden, The Mother and The Crone. It really makes them feel so familiar yet still so otherworldly and so menacing in such a subtle way that the whole time you're with them, you are just so on edge. So, so good.

    And then the way the characters play RIGHT into their hands, simply based on a few key statements the Norns make. Fate may not be pre-written, but you can't deny that the Norns don't enjoy preying on the nature of those they interact with and influencing them and their choices.

  42. Any airshow routine takes methodical planning. Some of the experts were Bob Hoover, Sean D. Tucker, and the pilots of the Blues and Thunderbirds who demonstrate a well organized, highly complex airshow.

    These experts still have odds stacked in their favor. Hoover and Tucker fly alone. The Blue Angles fly the same type with identical performance. And they stay clear of the JATO C-130 and parachutes.

    Any time you have large quantities of dissimilar aircraft in a confined area, mid-air collisions are far more probable.

    Most midairs take place over airports, because thats where all the aircraft are at one place and one altitude at the same time.

    In my opinion, based on an objective, logical approach, I can say that Having the faster fighters turning inside the slow bombers instead of vice-versa was an egregious mistake.

    While quite obvious in hindsight to everyone, it really should have been obvious to at least some of the "expert" formation pilots and planners involved.

    The overwhelming obviousness to anyone who has twirled a stick between their legs, and also bothered to engage their mind and think:

    1: Since the bombers are slower than the fighters, it stands to reason the fighters would be overtaking the bombers.

    2: Because bomber pilots cannot see through 50 feet of aluminum aft of their cockpit, and the fact that they are generally not very maneuverable, it stands to reason that they will be unable to "see and avoid" the fighters which are approaching from behind.

    3: Since the bombers are unable to see and avoid the fighters, the fighters are therefore solely responsible for avoiding the bombers. (Anyone can see, this is already a huge disadvantage in collision avoidance, imagine a four way stop sign that operated like this).

    4: Since the fighters must avoid the bombers at all times, being exclusively responsible for avoiding collision. And they avoid bombers by knowing where they are, and they identify where they are by visual means, then obviously fighter pilots must keep the bombers in sight at all times.

    5: In order to maintain visual contact with large, slow moving bombers, and since fighters canopies are mounted on top and not on the floor, it stands to reason that the fighters should maintain visual contact by looking up and outside the cockpit. Up, in this case, is "inside" the turn, not at the very opaque floor.

    6: If turning, while maintaining visual contact at all times with the slower moving bombers is a primary requirement; then inevitably, logically, this means the fighters must be OUTSIDE the bomber circle, and should not turning INSIDE them.

    One can also use vertical seperation to achieve an order of magnitude reduction in risk. Since half of the pilots involved cannot "see and avoid" yet are being flown in close proximity to other aircraft, where half of the total pilots eyes and brains are unable to see and avoid collision, vertical seperation would logically be a prerequisite for this sort of activity. – This basic concept should be utilized at all times when flying a vehicle that operates in 3-dimensions. We use 3D collision avoidance every time we fly over a tree or a house or a school bus. To willfully and intentionally handicap yourself to flying down main-street at cars altitude and avoiding buildings in the same manner as 2D vehicles, in the name of better photos and a public spectacle is insanity.

    Also: Since engines quit, and may require emergency landing, and since single engine fighters have only one engine, they should be flown at an altitude that allows safe landing on the runway at any point in their pattern. Given that they are cruising at nearly 200 knots, and are probably capable of gaining +1,500ft by pulling up at speed, and can likely land from 2,000' without too much issue, this sets their lower limit due to engine failure at around 500ft.

    Do we want to spend half the day fly at our personal minimum? No. And, as pointed out, how do the fighter "dive" under the others to maintain visual contact, avoid collision, when overtaking too fast? If 500' is the minimum, then we need several hundred more to pass below and behind without dipping into our minimum.

    Most traffic patterns have a standard altitude of at least 800'AGL. So lets use 800 feet altitude for the fighters.

    Since bombers have multiple engines, they can probably continue flight for several minutes after an engine failure. So their altitude is slightly less critical and they can be located at any altitude. Keeping in mind that more engines increases the complexity and also the chance of component failure multiplied by engine count, they are probably more likeley to experience a major mechanical problem. So their minimum altitude should account for this as well.

    500ft is probably their minimum as well. Locating Bombers at the same altitude that the fighters may dive too would be bad practice. But since the fighters are flying to the outside of the bombers, when they dive under and overshoot each other they will be to the far outside of the airshow proper, and moving away from the bombers anyway.

    Now, with the bombers located inside the fighter perimeter, at 500', and the fighters stationed outside at 800' you have a much lower chance of collision.

    Now, since bombers are larger than fighters, and the fighters are now 300' higher than the bombers: Would the crowd be any farther away from the fighters if they flew at 800' traffic pattern altitude instead of 500?

    Since the crowd is probably located nearly 1,000ft away laterally, an extra 300' vertically is almost the exact same distance line-of-sight, away.

    It can thus be shown that it makes no sense to fly these airplanes quite so low and at the same altitude. 17:00 Agreed.

  43. Best failure analysis I've seen in a long time, covering a technical subject in a way a non-expert can understand. And with great sensitivity to the tragic nature of the event. My daughter flies for the USAF and I pray for her every day. Condolences on the loss of your friend and thank you for your service.

  44. Thanks, this is a perfect analysis, I’m just someone that loves to go to the shows, and it’s a terrible tragedy for the families. I didn’t know that bit about the rejoin, but brilliantly explained that you have to dip wing and go under and as you explain with fighters and bombers at same level, there was insufficient space to do that. Thanks for your explanation

  45. Blancolirio on another Youtuber ( Probable cause) apparently he got some info that the air boss told the P63 To over take the B17 on for that fly bye but what's not mention is when was the pilot suppose to execute the maneuver.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.