6 ms·

Dallas midair tragedy: New videos show startling change in flight path of p-63

127 points by ethotool 4y ago

vforvendettador 4y ago
It's tragic if it's true about the drone. It's my worst nightmare whenever I'm flying these days.
- leetrout 4y ago
  I am not sure which craft you are talking about flying. Hitting a drone is your worst nightmare while piloting small aircraft? Or hitting a plane is your worst nightmare when flying a drone?
  - Alupis 4y ago
    > Hitting a drone is your worst nightmare while piloting small aircraft A small GA aircraft hitting a drone has a very high fatality chance, particularly in the stages of flight most likely to encounter amateur drone operators (ie. takeoff and landing).
    - thrill 4y ago
      No, it likely wouldn't have a large effect on the GA aircraft.
      - bobkazamakis 4y ago
        ? Either you don't know what GA aircraft entails, or you've got a real misconception of the size of a drone compared to a bird.
        thrill 4y ago
        Well, I've hit birds with wingspans around a dozen feet (didn't go measure). They make a mess, and have killed people I knew, but that was mostly because of their size and the penetration of the windscreen. Hitting a smaller object could certainly cause some damage but it wouldn't likely be immediate and catastrophic unless it was in a critical spot.
        Alupis 4y ago
        > unless it was in a critical spot Which is where most strikes occur. Low speed (relative for an aircraft) and low altitude. A bird hitting the prop, sucked into an engine, tail strike, windscreen, etc... all can be devastating for any aircraft, be it GA or commercial. A drone strike isn't somehow going to be better for the aircraft...
        thrill 4y ago
        Well, sure you don't want to hit anything unless you want to hit it, but doing so is unlikely to be the mushroom cloud event that seems to be believed occurs when hitting a drone.
        SamBam 4y ago
        > birds with wingspans around a dozen feet Albatross or pelican? I think 12.1 feet is the world record.
        thrill 4y ago
        Spanish condors - they look bigger when they suddenly appear in your way.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      A swan can weigh 8 kilos, a goose can weigh 6, and DJi phantom weighs 1.2 kilos. Multiple planes crashed with fatalities vecause of birds, as far as I am aware none have done so because of a drone. The fear of drones had led to pilots reporting drone sightings at 10,000 feet in the middle of the Ocean, thousands of miles from shore. "Several commenters noted that the AMA analyzed those reported ‘incidents’ and found that out of the 764 reported records, only 27 (or 3.5%) were identified as a near mid-air collision, with nearly all of those involving government-authorized military drones"
      - Alupis 4y ago
        What's the point you're trying to make? Just because we don't yet have a confirmed kill from a DJI Phantom means it's impossible? We do have confirmed strikes from drones, and the damage has been devastating. We do have confirmed strikes with fatalities from birds. There is not much difference between a bird and a drone when an aircraft strikes it at speed... These drones are often operated by folks with zero training and zero deference for the law or aviation safety (highlighted by the fact they're operating near an airport). It's just a matter of time... if it hasn't already happened right here in this Dallas incident.
        ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        > What's the point you're trying to make? Just because we don't yet have a confirmed kill from a DJI Phantom means it's impossible? Anything is possible, there is a guy that was killed by his beard, shot by a dog and every year several people die from being tangled on bedsheets. Lets keep things in proportion. I, for one, am unclear why we immediately jumped to regulating drones, but when Tespa autopilot kills people, nobody seems to care? The real point is that people in this thread are too quick to blame drones, when geese outnumbet them 1000 to one. I live near an airport and a huge flock of geese is constantly here. When I see people with real drones, they tend to know whay they are doing. The only people I see fooling around are people who buy a tiny drone for $50 on Amazon and the worst those drones can do is get aruck in your hair while filming nudes.
        4y ago
    - jandrese 4y ago
      This seems surprising. Most drones weigh no more than a medium sized bird and are made out of flimsy materials that shatter readily. Sure there might be a bit of fire from the destruction of the battery pack, but nothing that should be a major problem for a GA aircraft. Unless by drone you are talking about a Global Hawk? I would count that as a high fatality risk.
    - salamandars 4y ago
      Can you source this? I can't find any information on fatalities due to aircraft-drone collisions, topic of this article notwithstanding.
      - Alupis 4y ago
        You don't need a source. An object striking an aircraft in flight is devastating, and can be very fatal. Just because the object was made in China vs. hatched out of an egg doesn't really matter... the results will be the same.
        salamandars 4y ago
        Well, according to wikipedia, only between 11-15% of bird strikes result in damage to the aircraft. Apparently large birds like geese are the main danger. I imagine a similar distribution with drone strikes, as most drones do not weigh as much as a goose, at least of those in the hands of a typical idiot (who would fly in the path of a plane). That's why 'very high fatality chance' doesn't seem right to me, but I can't find any statistics on it.
      - caconym_ 4y ago
        > I can't find any information on fatalities due to aircraft-drone collisions, topic of this article notwithstanding. That's because there have not been any: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicles-related_incidents#Verified_aircraft_collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicl...
    - heliodor 4y ago
      > very high fatality chance Really? Very high? My uneducated guess is that there's a very high chance of damage to the airplane, but not of crash landing, and certainly not of death.
- aaron695 4y ago
  It doesn't look like a drone. Although possible, war planes should not be as affected by strikes. Why do you think it's a drone?
  - Alupis 4y ago
    > war planes should not be as affected by strikes. There is nothing special about a war plane that makes it less affected by strikes of any kind, be from birds or drones alike.
    - someweirdperson 4y ago
      A bullet-proof windshield protects the most vulnerable part (the pilot) a lot better than any civilian plane can.
      - Alupis 4y ago
        Most (practically all) aircraft do not have bullet-proof windshields (including military), for starters, and secondly a several pound meat ball travelling at closing speeds anywhere between 60kts (GA) to 200+ kts (jets/airliners/mil) is going to do a number on the aircraft regardless if it incapacitated the pilot. Doubly-so if it's a several pound metal ball... You don't want to hit anything in an aircraft, ever.
        someweirdperson 4y ago
        > Most (practically all) aircraft do not have bullet-proof windshields (including military) The P-63 did (example picture [0]), like many others that were designed to attack bombers and/or ground targets. [0] https://www.flickr.com/photos/23057174@N02/3031666813 https://www.flickr.com/photos/23057174@N02/3031666813
        Alupis 4y ago
        The person in the picture is speculating it's a bullet proof windshield, and he's mistaken (particularly from the P-39 aircraft mentioned in the link). If you look at both a P-63 and P-39 you will not find any windshield or window that is even remotely shaped like what is held in the image. Regardless, modernly speaking, very few (if any) aircraft have bullet proof windshields. They are impractical for a number of reasons, including weight, size, thickness (distortion of picture), and efficacy. If a pilot is within small-arms distance they generally are already in trouble...
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  > It's my worst nightmare whenever I'm flying these days. Maybe if someone is deliberately flying near an airport and moves into the exact right position at the right time without first being spotted But in practice, mainstream drones are GPS locked to not fly anywhere near airports and it's not really realistic to just accidentally get a drone too close to an airplane anywhere else. Also, the sky is a massive place and drones have limited flight time. I think the drone-airplane collision fears are greatly exaggerated outside of unique low-altitude specialty flying like airshows.
- caconym_ 4y ago
  > It's my worst nightmare whenever I'm flying these days. We've all got our irrational fears, but whether you're flying in a jumbo jet or a single-prop bug-smasher this one is very irrational indeed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicles-related_incidents#Verified_aircraft_collisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicl...
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  There's never been a verified fatality or even injury caused by a midair collision between a drone and a manned aircraft, as far as I know. You're way to more likely to be killed by a midair in the pattern at an uncontrolled field than anything drone related.
danuker 4y ago
https://archive.ph/gvIdC https://archive.ph/gvIdC
dangle1 4y ago
Well, if true, some drone operator now has a lifetime of painful guilt to look forward to.
- fasthands9 4y ago
  Im having trouble seeing if there are clear rules around this type of thing. If so - I dont see how this shouldnt be tried criminally. Similar to how someone would be tried for driving a car through a pedestrian area and striking someone, even if they had not explicit intent to harm.
  - JCM9 4y ago
    The airspace around the airshow was under a TFR (temporary flight restriction). It would have been highly illegal for anyone to fly a drone there.
  - david422 4y ago
    Definitely restricted airspace around an airshow.
  - tracerbulletx 4y ago
    They might have had a drone there with approval to cover the event too.
    - fasthands9 4y ago
      If you were flying the drone there in the approved space - you'd obviously know your drone was struck. Shouldnt that person have reported it immediately if they were being proper about following all guidelines?
      - dylan604 4y ago
        Or as the promoter of the airshow permitting drones to be used, I'd be calling every single one of them in to show me their drone and all footage acquired during the event. Any one of them raising a stink about it, I'd be providing their contact information to the authorities.
leetrout 4y ago
The Blancolirio channel covered the preliminary report and it says the air boss ordered them to change flight paths. Nothing was mentioned about a drone. https://youtu.be/IRVqg-pCb6o https://youtu.be/IRVqg-pCb6o
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- MerelyMortal 4y ago
  Here's a short article that does a much better job at relaying the information while being more considerate of the viewer's time: https://simpleflying.com/preliminary-ntsb-report-dallas-crash/ https://simpleflying.com/preliminary-ntsb-report-dallas-cras... (Seriously, the first 54 seconds of the video linked in the parent comment was just talking about local weather and a video of some trees.)
  - pigbearpig 4y ago
    The Blancolirio channel is pretty respected when it comes to covering aviation incidents. (Seriously, the first article of the site linked in the parent comment was just talking about most expensive airports for Christmas car parking.)
    - 8bitsrule 4y ago
      And Juan questioned the flight director's wisdom in having the jets and bombers flying at the same altitude so near the audience. Had there been a 500-ft separation, any collision would have left a lot more reaction time.
    - MerelyMortal 4y ago
      You can easily skip over and not click on an article, not so with fluff content in a video. There's a reason people are using add-ons that let you skip that kind of garbage in Youtube videos. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/sponsorblock/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/sponsorblock/ > SponsorBlock lets you skip over ... annoying parts of YouTube videos.
WalterBright 4y ago
Ought to be able to find the wreckage of the drone to confirm.
- abracadaniel 4y ago
  This keeps coming up in early reports for civilian air crashes, but so far has not been true. The community is paranoid about it as a possibility.
thrill 4y ago
FWIW, I have a few thousand hours flying jet fighters and have hit rather large birds at high speed (me, not them), and have been hit by rather large caliber bullets (I assume also at high speed). From the two videos, taken at two locations, I cannot positively id a drone. What is described as a sudden altitude change in the second video doesn't look like anything in the first video, though it's mostly blocked by the inconveniently placed large sign. The appearance of a "large altitude change" could be easily explained by the pilot simply easing off the g in the turn to gain visibility, to gain a little speed if it was needed, or sure, to suddenly try to avoid something. It looks exaggerated in the second video I think because the camera is manually tracking something. hitting a drone is unlikely to cause significant damage unless it hit in just the right spot. Seeing and overreacting to a drone might cause some damage but there is probably one second of altitude change there if any - that collision was already quite likely from the intercept path being flown. I've not flown either of those aircraft (before my time) but looking underneath during a turn requires effort and may not have even been possible, especially if there was a lack of awareness to prompt the look. I think Juan's youtube video explaining the airborne change of directive from what in the comments on that video appears to have been an under briefed, and sadly under questioned briefing, is by far the most likely explanation.
- akiselev 4y ago
  Any advice for a aspiring fighter jet pilot? (goal is to eventually fly an L39 Albatross)
  - thrill 4y ago
    If you're talking civilian, then about all I could recommend is to take your time and let the experience build instead of trying to do too much at once. Most civilian pilots I know that have learned to fly fast jets tend to have to cram all their training into limited free time, and that makes it harder to keep a consistent training attitude. the military of course has a very formal and long tested training process, and while they've introduced a lot of technology in the last decade to try to shorten that time, it's still done under the supervision of well experienced and qualified instructors training consistently on familiar equipment, so in a way it's "easier" or at least easier to maintain a good focus
pastaguy1 4y ago
FWIW, there was a near miss during a blue angels flyover a couple years ago. https://youtu.be/Wh3TIy2gtPs https://youtu.be/Wh3TIy2gtPs
stephen_g 4y ago
I saw a good analysis by a pilot who does this kind of formation flying (and I think who knew some of the people involved). I think this is before the preliminary NTSB report was released, so it is speculative, but his view was that there was a pretty good likelihood that the shape of the P-63 probably meant that the pilot probably lost sight of the B-17 for a decent amount of time during the turn, and that while we don't yet know exactly where the planes were supposed to be in the formation, his view from the ADS-B data was that the pattern seemed to be just plain dangerous and shouldn't have been done without vertically separating the slower planes (B-17 etc.) and the faster planes. EDIT: I think it was this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C342dfNPCyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C342dfNPCyg
- jt2190 4y ago
  Here’s a link directly to the point in the video where he demonstrates how it’s possible for the P63 pilot to not see the B17: https://youtu.be/C342dfNPCyg?t=351 https://youtu.be/C342dfNPCyg?t=351
anigbrowl 4y ago
Former pro video editor here. The second video looks like bullshit. Serious people would show the video at normal speed, then slowed done, and added timecode, as well as documenting their methods. They also wouldn't make assumptions about what was going on, eg 'tries to restart the engine'. These black blobs look to me like compression artifacts, from zooming a video from a phone camera that was compressed for storage and then compressed again when uploaded to social media. Also, even if there was an object and the engine went out (which seems unlikely, most drones are pretty fragile and would be destroyed by a propellor), losing power doesn't mean losing all control of the plane. Manual flight control would still work to some extent. But I don't see last-minute efforts to avoid a collision that tragically failed; it looks like the fighter was pointed straight at the bomber. I haven't checked to see if it originates on 4chan, but it wouldn't surprise me. No-standards amateur sleuthing is the norm there, occasionally they get something right but their hit rate is like 5% at best. That's not stereotyping, I've been a regular there since 2008. ------------------- EDIT: fieryskiff11 33 minutes ago [dead] | parent | next [–] >I've been a regular there since 2008 Your username makes sense now Not sure why, it's a made-up word I came up with in the 1990s for myself and is not meant to convey any secondary meaning. 4chan allows persistent usernames but I've never bothered to create one.
- fieryskiff11 4y ago
- tomcam 4y ago
  Well it is an anagram for “goblin war”
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    I wish I was a punk so I could use that as the name of my new band.
- vannevar 4y ago
  The NTSB preliminary report points strongly toward negligence, which I'm sure was not lost on the potential defendants, their insurance companies, and their counsel. If I were on the defendants' legal team, I would be very happy to see a video like this surface, regardless of where it came from. I'd be even happier to see it picked up by a major news outlet, which would generally require first that it pop up in popular online news sites, like say HN.
esaym 4y ago
This appears to be the original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfz7eFSX_FU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfz7eFSX_FU and a heck of a lot clearer.
ghastmaster 4y ago
Nonsense. Utter nonsense. There are multiple video angles of this if you do the research. Dan Gryder has done some research and has come to a very logical conclusion. General aviation is his forte. Check out his analysis: https://youtu.be/prk0j8cveYY?t=1352 https://youtu.be/prk0j8cveYY?t=1352 Basically, it appears that the organizer/commander instructed the p-63f to take the 500ft path (distance from the crowd) and the b-17g to move to 1000ft distance while they were at the same altitude. Disorganization from the getgo led to the crash. If you see a general aviation crash and want to know what happened, check out what Dan has to say first.
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
  I'm withholding judgement until AdmiralCloudberg reads the NTSB report and then adds great diagrams. Seriously though, it does feel like a classic fuck up where two planes intended to be at separate flight levels end up at the same level temporarily.
- _ea1k 4y ago
  I hadn't heard that detail, but that's baffling. Why would they think crossing paths at the same altitude and without the other traffic in sight is a good idea?
adamsb6 4y ago
That looks a lot like a compression artifact, especially given how it seems to blip out of existence between frames.
jpgvm 4y ago
No mention of a drone from any of the actually trustworthy sources. The sad reality of this incident is that it was likely just a result of poor vertical separation, either due to badly planned flight paths or lack of preparation, more likely both.

127 points by ethotool 4y ago

vforvendettador 4y ago

It's tragic if it's true about the drone. It's my worst nightmare whenever I'm flying these days.

leetrout 4y ago
I am not sure which craft you are talking about flying. Hitting a drone is your worst nightmare while piloting small aircraft? Or hitting a plane is your worst nightmare when flying a drone?
- Alupis 4y ago
  > Hitting a drone is your worst nightmare while piloting small aircraft A small GA aircraft hitting a drone has a very high fatality chance, particularly in the stages of flight most likely to encounter amateur drone operators (ie. takeoff and landing).
  - thrill 4y ago
    No, it likely wouldn't have a large effect on the GA aircraft.
    - bobkazamakis 4y ago
      ? Either you don't know what GA aircraft entails, or you've got a real misconception of the size of a drone compared to a bird.
      - thrill 4y ago
        Well, I've hit birds with wingspans around a dozen feet (didn't go measure). They make a mess, and have killed people I knew, but that was mostly because of their size and the penetration of the windscreen. Hitting a smaller object could certainly cause some damage but it wouldn't likely be immediate and catastrophic unless it was in a critical spot.
        Alupis 4y ago
        > unless it was in a critical spot Which is where most strikes occur. Low speed (relative for an aircraft) and low altitude. A bird hitting the prop, sucked into an engine, tail strike, windscreen, etc... all can be devastating for any aircraft, be it GA or commercial. A drone strike isn't somehow going to be better for the aircraft...
        thrill 4y ago
        Well, sure you don't want to hit anything unless you want to hit it, but doing so is unlikely to be the mushroom cloud event that seems to be believed occurs when hitting a drone.
        SamBam 4y ago
        > birds with wingspans around a dozen feet Albatross or pelican? I think 12.1 feet is the world record.
        thrill 4y ago
        Spanish condors - they look bigger when they suddenly appear in your way.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    A swan can weigh 8 kilos, a goose can weigh 6, and DJi phantom weighs 1.2 kilos. Multiple planes crashed with fatalities vecause of birds, as far as I am aware none have done so because of a drone. The fear of drones had led to pilots reporting drone sightings at 10,000 feet in the middle of the Ocean, thousands of miles from shore. "Several commenters noted that the AMA analyzed those reported ‘incidents’ and found that out of the 764 reported records, only 27 (or 3.5%) were identified as a near mid-air collision, with nearly all of those involving government-authorized military drones"
    - Alupis 4y ago
      What's the point you're trying to make? Just because we don't yet have a confirmed kill from a DJI Phantom means it's impossible? We do have confirmed strikes from drones, and the damage has been devastating. We do have confirmed strikes with fatalities from birds. There is not much difference between a bird and a drone when an aircraft strikes it at speed... These drones are often operated by folks with zero training and zero deference for the law or aviation safety (highlighted by the fact they're operating near an airport). It's just a matter of time... if it hasn't already happened right here in this Dallas incident.
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        > What's the point you're trying to make? Just because we don't yet have a confirmed kill from a DJI Phantom means it's impossible? Anything is possible, there is a guy that was killed by his beard, shot by a dog and every year several people die from being tangled on bedsheets. Lets keep things in proportion. I, for one, am unclear why we immediately jumped to regulating drones, but when Tespa autopilot kills people, nobody seems to care? The real point is that people in this thread are too quick to blame drones, when geese outnumbet them 1000 to one. I live near an airport and a huge flock of geese is constantly here. When I see people with real drones, they tend to know whay they are doing. The only people I see fooling around are people who buy a tiny drone for $50 on Amazon and the worst those drones can do is get aruck in your hair while filming nudes.
        4y ago
  - jandrese 4y ago
    This seems surprising. Most drones weigh no more than a medium sized bird and are made out of flimsy materials that shatter readily. Sure there might be a bit of fire from the destruction of the battery pack, but nothing that should be a major problem for a GA aircraft. Unless by drone you are talking about a Global Hawk? I would count that as a high fatality risk.
  - salamandars 4y ago
    Can you source this? I can't find any information on fatalities due to aircraft-drone collisions, topic of this article notwithstanding.
    - Alupis 4y ago
      You don't need a source. An object striking an aircraft in flight is devastating, and can be very fatal. Just because the object was made in China vs. hatched out of an egg doesn't really matter... the results will be the same.
      - salamandars 4y ago
        Well, according to wikipedia, only between 11-15% of bird strikes result in damage to the aircraft. Apparently large birds like geese are the main danger. I imagine a similar distribution with drone strikes, as most drones do not weigh as much as a goose, at least of those in the hands of a typical idiot (who would fly in the path of a plane). That's why 'very high fatality chance' doesn't seem right to me, but I can't find any statistics on it.
    - caconym_ 4y ago
      > I can't find any information on fatalities due to aircraft-drone collisions, topic of this article notwithstanding. That's because there have not been any: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicles-related_incidents#Verified_aircraft_collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicl...
  - heliodor 4y ago
    > very high fatality chance Really? Very high? My uneducated guess is that there's a very high chance of damage to the airplane, but not of crash landing, and certainly not of death.
aaron695 4y ago
It doesn't look like a drone. Although possible, war planes should not be as affected by strikes. Why do you think it's a drone?
- Alupis 4y ago
  > war planes should not be as affected by strikes. There is nothing special about a war plane that makes it less affected by strikes of any kind, be from birds or drones alike.
  - someweirdperson 4y ago
    A bullet-proof windshield protects the most vulnerable part (the pilot) a lot better than any civilian plane can.
    - Alupis 4y ago
      Most (practically all) aircraft do not have bullet-proof windshields (including military), for starters, and secondly a several pound meat ball travelling at closing speeds anywhere between 60kts (GA) to 200+ kts (jets/airliners/mil) is going to do a number on the aircraft regardless if it incapacitated the pilot. Doubly-so if it's a several pound metal ball... You don't want to hit anything in an aircraft, ever.
      - someweirdperson 4y ago
        > Most (practically all) aircraft do not have bullet-proof windshields (including military) The P-63 did (example picture [0]), like many others that were designed to attack bombers and/or ground targets. [0] https://www.flickr.com/photos/23057174@N02/3031666813 https://www.flickr.com/photos/23057174@N02/3031666813
        Alupis 4y ago
        The person in the picture is speculating it's a bullet proof windshield, and he's mistaken (particularly from the P-39 aircraft mentioned in the link). If you look at both a P-63 and P-39 you will not find any windshield or window that is even remotely shaped like what is held in the image. Regardless, modernly speaking, very few (if any) aircraft have bullet proof windshields. They are impractical for a number of reasons, including weight, size, thickness (distortion of picture), and efficacy. If a pilot is within small-arms distance they generally are already in trouble...
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> It's my worst nightmare whenever I'm flying these days. Maybe if someone is deliberately flying near an airport and moves into the exact right position at the right time without first being spotted But in practice, mainstream drones are GPS locked to not fly anywhere near airports and it's not really realistic to just accidentally get a drone too close to an airplane anywhere else. Also, the sky is a massive place and drones have limited flight time. I think the drone-airplane collision fears are greatly exaggerated outside of unique low-altitude specialty flying like airshows.
caconym_ 4y ago
> It's my worst nightmare whenever I'm flying these days. We've all got our irrational fears, but whether you're flying in a jumbo jet or a single-prop bug-smasher this one is very irrational indeed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicles-related_incidents#Verified_aircraft_collisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicl...
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
There's never been a verified fatality or even injury caused by a midair collision between a drone and a manned aircraft, as far as I know. You're way to more likely to be killed by a midair in the pattern at an uncontrolled field than anything drone related.

danuker 4y ago

https://archive.ph/gvIdC https://archive.ph/gvIdC

dangle1 4y ago

Well, if true, some drone operator now has a lifetime of painful guilt to look forward to.

fasthands9 4y ago
Im having trouble seeing if there are clear rules around this type of thing. If so - I dont see how this shouldnt be tried criminally. Similar to how someone would be tried for driving a car through a pedestrian area and striking someone, even if they had not explicit intent to harm.
- JCM9 4y ago
  The airspace around the airshow was under a TFR (temporary flight restriction). It would have been highly illegal for anyone to fly a drone there.
- david422 4y ago
  Definitely restricted airspace around an airshow.
- tracerbulletx 4y ago
  They might have had a drone there with approval to cover the event too.
  - fasthands9 4y ago
    If you were flying the drone there in the approved space - you'd obviously know your drone was struck. Shouldnt that person have reported it immediately if they were being proper about following all guidelines?
    - dylan604 4y ago
      Or as the promoter of the airshow permitting drones to be used, I'd be calling every single one of them in to show me their drone and all footage acquired during the event. Any one of them raising a stink about it, I'd be providing their contact information to the authorities.

leetrout 4y ago

The Blancolirio channel covered the preliminary report and it says the air boss ordered them to change flight paths. Nothing was mentioned about a drone. https://youtu.be/IRVqg-pCb6o https://youtu.be/IRVqg-pCb6o

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
MerelyMortal 4y ago
Here's a short article that does a much better job at relaying the information while being more considerate of the viewer's time: https://simpleflying.com/preliminary-ntsb-report-dallas-crash/ https://simpleflying.com/preliminary-ntsb-report-dallas-cras... (Seriously, the first 54 seconds of the video linked in the parent comment was just talking about local weather and a video of some trees.)
- pigbearpig 4y ago
  The Blancolirio channel is pretty respected when it comes to covering aviation incidents. (Seriously, the first article of the site linked in the parent comment was just talking about most expensive airports for Christmas car parking.)
  - 8bitsrule 4y ago
    And Juan questioned the flight director's wisdom in having the jets and bombers flying at the same altitude so near the audience. Had there been a 500-ft separation, any collision would have left a lot more reaction time.
  - MerelyMortal 4y ago
    You can easily skip over and not click on an article, not so with fluff content in a video. There's a reason people are using add-ons that let you skip that kind of garbage in Youtube videos. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/sponsorblock/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/sponsorblock/ > SponsorBlock lets you skip over ... annoying parts of YouTube videos.

WalterBright 4y ago

Ought to be able to find the wreckage of the drone to confirm.

abracadaniel 4y ago
This keeps coming up in early reports for civilian air crashes, but so far has not been true. The community is paranoid about it as a possibility.

thrill 4y ago

FWIW, I have a few thousand hours flying jet fighters and have hit rather large birds at high speed (me, not them), and have been hit by rather large caliber bullets (I assume also at high speed). From the two videos, taken at two locations, I cannot positively id a drone. What is described as a sudden altitude change in the second video doesn't look like anything in the first video, though it's mostly blocked by the inconveniently placed large sign. The appearance of a "large altitude change" could be easily explained by the pilot simply easing off the g in the turn to gain visibility, to gain a little speed if it was needed, or sure, to suddenly try to avoid something. It looks exaggerated in the second video I think because the camera is manually tracking something. hitting a drone is unlikely to cause significant damage unless it hit in just the right spot. Seeing and overreacting to a drone might cause some damage but there is probably one second of altitude change there if any - that collision was already quite likely from the intercept path being flown. I've not flown either of those aircraft (before my time) but looking underneath during a turn requires effort and may not have even been possible, especially if there was a lack of awareness to prompt the look. I think Juan's youtube video explaining the airborne change of directive from what in the comments on that video appears to have been an under briefed, and sadly under questioned briefing, is by far the most likely explanation.

akiselev 4y ago
Any advice for a aspiring fighter jet pilot? (goal is to eventually fly an L39 Albatross)
- thrill 4y ago
  If you're talking civilian, then about all I could recommend is to take your time and let the experience build instead of trying to do too much at once. Most civilian pilots I know that have learned to fly fast jets tend to have to cram all their training into limited free time, and that makes it harder to keep a consistent training attitude. the military of course has a very formal and long tested training process, and while they've introduced a lot of technology in the last decade to try to shorten that time, it's still done under the supervision of well experienced and qualified instructors training consistently on familiar equipment, so in a way it's "easier" or at least easier to maintain a good focus

pastaguy1 4y ago

FWIW, there was a near miss during a blue angels flyover a couple years ago. https://youtu.be/Wh3TIy2gtPs https://youtu.be/Wh3TIy2gtPs

stephen_g 4y ago

I saw a good analysis by a pilot who does this kind of formation flying (and I think who knew some of the people involved). I think this is before the preliminary NTSB report was released, so it is speculative, but his view was that there was a pretty good likelihood that the shape of the P-63 probably meant that the pilot probably lost sight of the B-17 for a decent amount of time during the turn, and that while we don't yet know exactly where the planes were supposed to be in the formation, his view from the ADS-B data was that the pattern seemed to be just plain dangerous and shouldn't have been done without vertically separating the slower planes (B-17 etc.) and the faster planes. EDIT: I think it was this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C342dfNPCyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C342dfNPCyg

jt2190 4y ago
Here’s a link directly to the point in the video where he demonstrates how it’s possible for the P63 pilot to not see the B17: https://youtu.be/C342dfNPCyg?t=351 https://youtu.be/C342dfNPCyg?t=351

anigbrowl 4y ago

Former pro video editor here. The second video looks like bullshit. Serious people would show the video at normal speed, then slowed done, and added timecode, as well as documenting their methods. They also wouldn't make assumptions about what was going on, eg 'tries to restart the engine'. These black blobs look to me like compression artifacts, from zooming a video from a phone camera that was compressed for storage and then compressed again when uploaded to social media. Also, even if there was an object and the engine went out (which seems unlikely, most drones are pretty fragile and would be destroyed by a propellor), losing power doesn't mean losing all control of the plane. Manual flight control would still work to some extent. But I don't see last-minute efforts to avoid a collision that tragically failed; it looks like the fighter was pointed straight at the bomber. I haven't checked to see if it originates on 4chan, but it wouldn't surprise me. No-standards amateur sleuthing is the norm there, occasionally they get something right but their hit rate is like 5% at best. That's not stereotyping, I've been a regular there since 2008. ------------------- EDIT: fieryskiff11 33 minutes ago [dead] | parent | next [–] >I've been a regular there since 2008 Your username makes sense now Not sure why, it's a made-up word I came up with in the 1990s for myself and is not meant to convey any secondary meaning. 4chan allows persistent usernames but I've never bothered to create one.

fieryskiff11 4y ago
tomcam 4y ago
Well it is an anagram for “goblin war”
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  I wish I was a punk so I could use that as the name of my new band.
vannevar 4y ago
The NTSB preliminary report points strongly toward negligence, which I'm sure was not lost on the potential defendants, their insurance companies, and their counsel. If I were on the defendants' legal team, I would be very happy to see a video like this surface, regardless of where it came from. I'd be even happier to see it picked up by a major news outlet, which would generally require first that it pop up in popular online news sites, like say HN.

esaym 4y ago

This appears to be the original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfz7eFSX_FU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfz7eFSX_FU and a heck of a lot clearer.

ghastmaster 4y ago

Nonsense. Utter nonsense. There are multiple video angles of this if you do the research. Dan Gryder has done some research and has come to a very logical conclusion. General aviation is his forte. Check out his analysis: https://youtu.be/prk0j8cveYY?t=1352 https://youtu.be/prk0j8cveYY?t=1352 Basically, it appears that the organizer/commander instructed the p-63f to take the 500ft path (distance from the crowd) and the b-17g to move to 1000ft distance while they were at the same altitude. Disorganization from the getgo led to the crash. If you see a general aviation crash and want to know what happened, check out what Dan has to say first.

EdwardDiego 4y ago
I'm withholding judgement until AdmiralCloudberg reads the NTSB report and then adds great diagrams. Seriously though, it does feel like a classic fuck up where two planes intended to be at separate flight levels end up at the same level temporarily.
_ea1k 4y ago
I hadn't heard that detail, but that's baffling. Why would they think crossing paths at the same altitude and without the other traffic in sight is a good idea?

adamsb6 4y ago

That looks a lot like a compression artifact, especially given how it seems to blip out of existence between frames.

jpgvm 4y ago

No mention of a drone from any of the actually trustworthy sources. The sad reality of this incident is that it was likely just a result of poor vertical separation, either due to badly planned flight paths or lack of preparation, more likely both.