The name “Dan Gryder” means I would take that with several pinches of salt.
Dan Gryder released a video yesterday where he announced that the air boss, who he claims is solely to blame for this tragic accident and the incumbent loss of life (for telling the fighters to fly to the 500ft line and the bombers to switch from the 500ft line to the 1000ft line, which was neither briefed pre-show nor an agreed flying manoeuvre), was fired by the FAA as an air traffic controller because he had issues working under certain members of staff – namely women.
Seems he was then appointed air boss and allowed the power to get to his head, demanding aerial manoeuvres which were neither planned nor agreed, nor for which there was no room to correct any errors.
If this is indeed true, then I hope he gets the book thrown at him. Followed by the book case and the library. Brick by brick.
To add a tad more to the possible cause and to learn from it.
This analysis, if getting true point, would be reason for a tough discussion on skills requirements for staff operating airshows:
Are we still able to provide the needed safety or did we mentally degraded already too much?
Please, no politics here on mentally degraded politics … ;-).
Best explanation of the collision I’ve seen is this:
The Gentleman explains it clearly and comprehensively and leaves no space for doubts. It just illustrates the importance of “Plan your flight, fly your plan” rule.
Emir wrote:
claiming that P-63 hit the drone causing it to subsequently hit B-17.
Never heard this theory other than in forums, where it usually was discarded. Looking at the videos available, it does not seem that the P63 did any kind of maneuvering prior hitting the B17, it was in a turn trying to catch up with it’s formation. Hence he most probably never saw the B17.
I don’t know whether this article and video are genuine or it’s just an assumption – claiming that P-63 hit the drone causing it to subsequently hit B-17.
The photo and this event bring back disturbing memories from years ago of nearly being hit by a B17 while I was in the circuit at Meaux and on the local frequency. The aircraft passed directly below us, so if we were at 1000 ft AGL the B17 was probably at 500 ft. We just heard the roar as it went past, olive drab against the green ground, and were incredulous – a ghost? At the time I was annoyed I did not try to chase it but in hindsight we were very lucky……
AOPA has an early analysis video that is quite interesting.
Antonio wrote:
Linking the two B17 crashes is a bit premature
Not only premature but totally inappropriate, there is no ressemblance apart from the aircraft type.
I think Paul has got a point, even though I tend to agree with you regarding it being worth that they are flown. This accident imho however has nothing to do with “ancient airplanes” or similar question up front: It is a mid air collision which will affect any involved airplane adversely.
Unfortunately, his point is shared by not few regulators who would like to see historical airplanes grounded rather today than tomorrow. Let’s hope that the NTSB as well as the FAA keep their cool about this one, unlike some European ones which put an end to flying historical larger airplanes for good due to a single accident attibuted to inapropriate flying technique in the Alps.
Dan wrote:
Paul Bertorelli does it again with an excellent take on the subject
I for once disagree with the conveyed view. I do think displaying these aircraft is definitely worthwhile, but that is my personal view, possible just as personal as the positive emotions lived by Paul when enjoying these aircraft.
Linking the two B17 crashes is a bit premature: they bear as little resemblance as possible to one another , other than the aircraft type.
