Preliminary NTSB Report on the Oshkosh P51 Crash Released
Dudley Henriques
last several minutes from a friend in the P51 Community.
I had just posted on the Mustang thread asking for patience in
speculating about this accident.
Anyway, here is the official word from the NTSB.
Dudley Henriques
NTSB: Pilots Weren't In Formation In OSH Landing Accident
Thu, 02 Aug '07
Says Race Aircraft Were Landing Separately
The National Transportation Safety Board released Wednesday its
Preliminary Report on last Friday's tragic landing accident at Wittman
Field in Oshkosh, WI during AirVenture 2007.
As ANN reported, pilot Gerard Beck was killed when his P-51A -- which he
built himself, using North American's original plans and blueprints --
struck the tail of a P-51D that had just touched down on runway 36 at
Wittman Field. Both aircraft had participated in a simulated air race
demonstration.
The prelim -- which follows, unedited but for formatting, below -- notes
the aircraft were not attempting a formation landing, as many had
speculated. Rather, it appears Beck may not have seen the P-51D's
location on the runway, resulting in the landing collision.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.
On July 27, 2007, at 1519 central daylight time, a North American P51-D,
Mustang, N151RJ, sustained substantial damage during landing when it was
struck in the empennage and fuselage by an amateur-built Beck P-51A,
Mustang, N8082U. N151RJ had just landed on runway 36 (8,002 feet by 150
feet, grooved concrete) at the Wittman Regional Airport (OSH), Oshkosh,
Wisconsin, and was starting its landing roll when N8082U struck its
empennage and fuselage.
The collision with N8082U pushed N151RJ onto its nose, and N151RJ
subsequently skidded down the runway and came to rest about 788 feet
from the initial impact point. N8082U was still airborne at the time of
the collision, and it rolled over to the right of the aft fuselage of
N151RJ and impacted the terrain in a wings level, inverted attitude. The
pilot in N151RJ was not injured, and the pilot in N8082U received fatal
injuries.
Both Mustang airplanes departed from OSH as part of a five-aircraft air
race demonstration event at the EAA AirVenture 2007 air show. The
demonstration air race was completed and the five aircraft were in the
process of landing separately, and not in formation, on runway 36.
deem...@aol.com
That's too bad. I guess when two planes at an airshow land
together, everyone just assumes they were in formation.
Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address)
process of landing separately, and not in formation"
I wonder what type of radio calls were made between them (if any,) and
if Casey Odegaard even knew if Gerald Beck was there.
BT
search on the EAA web pages and review the OSH NOTAMS for the EAA Event
B
"Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address)" <pNaOuS...@cox.net> wrote in
message news:Ssvsi.24452$GO6....@newsfe21.lga...
Morgans
"BT" > wrote
> you've never seen OshKosh operations..
>
> search on the EAA web pages and review the OSH NOTAMS for the EAA Event
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what the NOTAMS have to do with this
accident, since they were part of the air show, and NOT bound by the NOTAMS.
Best, on the other hand, to be silent on the subject, (and the previous
poster) as a sign of respect for the call of an end of speculation by the
P-51 community.
--
Jim in NC
BT
demo..
"Morgans" <jsmo...@charterJUNK.net> wrote in message
news:vowsi.823$FI....@newsfe12.lga...
Morgans
"BT" <bNO...@SPAM.cox.net> wrote in message
news:B6ysi.7756$xx1....@newsfe09.phx...
>I missed that they were part of the airshow.. I did pick up on the air race
>demo..
At the point in the afternoon where normal takeoffs and landings cease on
18/36, the air show has technically begun. Operations are then under
command of the air boss for that portion of the airspace.
Normally, the "homebuilt showcase" as it has become to be known, is flown as
invitation only of two circuits of the pattern, and it is first.
The air race demo is after that (at some point) but before the air show
performers begin.
--
Jim in NC
Ron Natalie
> you've never seen OshKosh operations..
>
> search on the EAA web pages and review the OSH NOTAMS for the EAA Event
>
> B
arrivals. The airport was effectively closed except for the
five planes in the air "race" demo and the DC3 that was launching
to drop the skydivers for the next act.
Danny Deger
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote in message
snip
> Both Mustang airplanes departed from OSH as part of a five-aircraft air
> race demonstration event at the EAA AirVenture 2007 air show. The
> demonstration air race was completed and the five aircraft were in the
> process of landing separately, and not in formation, on runway 36.
It looked like this on the video. The trailing aircraft was too far away to
be a formation landing. I looks like he lost sight of the guy in front.
You guys flying taildragger, I recommend kicking in a slip every now and
then on final to clear the runway.
Danny Deger
Lots of good flying stories on my web site,
www.dannydeger.net
Frank Ch. Eigler
Dudley Henriques <dhenr...@rcn.com> writes:
> The following information came in to me by back channel [...]
> > [...] The demonstration air race was completed and the five
> > aircraft were in the process of landing separately, and not in
> > formation, on runway 36.
Does that make sense though? It sounds like the two planes were very
close already on final, and the trailing pilot ought to have seen the
one just ahead.
- FChE
Danny Deger
news:y0mir7w...@ton.toronto.redhat.com...
The video shows the trailing plane was also higher. If is difficult to see
over the nose in a lot of taildraggers -- or even some nosewheel planes for
that matter. Like I said in an earlier post, I make it a habit to slip for
a second or two to clear the runway. I highly recommend this technique.
Danny Deger
Matt Whiting
Isn't there still some requirement for communication between the
aircraft and ground during an airshow?
Matt
Gattman
"Matt Whiting" <whi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:p1Nsi.11350$Oc.3...@news1.epix.net...
>> This has squat to do with the NOTAM and the normal oshkosh show arrivals.
>> The airport was effectively closed except for the
>> five planes in the air "race" demo and the DC3 that was launching
>> to drop the skydivers for the next act.
This is perhaps tangentally-related, but, for those of you who have
participated or monitored -during- the airshow, how much pressure is put on
the performers to return as quickly as possible after their performance.
The reason I ask is because at the Hillsboro Airshow a few years ago, which
I was attending and monitoring, the tower brought the warbirds in so fast to
keep on schedule that they were stacking up on the runway. What happened
is that a Mig, I think it was, blew a tire on the runway as it braked to
avoid the airplane ahead of it which hadn't cleared the active yet. As it
was trying to hobble off with a flat main tire, another warbird careened
nearly off the runway and almost groundlooped trying to avoid a collision
with the Mig.
The impression is that it was so important to leave time for Truckasaurus
and the other events that the warbird pilots were put into an unsafe
situation which resulted in two damaged airplanes, a near-collision and a
lack of safety that was likely apparent to every spectator watching. It
looked very unprofessional on the part of the pilots but if you were
monitoring the radio chatter you could hear that they were being rushed
along and that the pilots were a little upset about it. Safety literally
took second place to the airshow schedule. Is that common?
-c
Matt Whiting
> "Matt Whiting" <whi...@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:p1Nsi.11350$Oc.3...@news1.epix.net...
>
>>> This has squat to do with the NOTAM and the normal oshkosh show arrivals.
>>> The airport was effectively closed except for the
>>> five planes in the air "race" demo and the DC3 that was launching
>>> to drop the skydivers for the next act.
>
> This is perhaps tangentally-related, but, for those of you who have
> participated or monitored -during- the airshow, how much pressure is put on
> the performers to return as quickly as possible after their performance.
Just for the record, I said nothing above as attributed to me by
Gattman. You need to learn how to use a news reader.
Matt
Gattman
> Just for the record, I said nothing above as attributed to me by Gattman.
My error. I incorrectly trimmed the attributions.
>You need to learn how to use a news reader.
Hey, thanks. Jackass.
-c
George Z. Bush
Wasn't there a functioning tower to wave them off or fire some red flares
when the second one crept up on the one rounding out?
George Z.
Dave Kearton
Would the pilot of either aircraft have time to see a red flare from the
tower at that point in the landing ?
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Dudley Henriques
My sources tell me the A was on an extended final. With the amount of
flap the A was carrying, he would have also had to have been carrying
some manifold pressure to keep the nose up in that situation. It is
entirely possible that a Mustang in that approach configuration would
have a visual scan of the runway beyond where the D was obviously being
flared beneath the A's nose.
I believe the restricted visibility inherent to the A was a contributing
factor to this accident. I also believe that the investigation will
reveal additional factors involving the prebriefed pattern sequencing
and errors within that sequencing.
Dudley Henriques
Morgans
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote
> I also believe that the investigation will reveal additional factors
> involving the prebriefed pattern sequencing and errors within that
> sequencing.
Right.
Until the report comes out, everyone, lets all STFU, and honor the request
of the P-51 community to let the conjecture end. Let the thread die a
natural death.
--
Jim in NC
Danny Deger
Who runs this P-51 community that is trying to run the internet? I havn't
heard from anyone.
Danny Deger
Morgans
"Danny Deger" < wrote
> Who runs this P-51 community that is trying to run the internet? I havn't
> heard from anyone.
Typical response from you.
Just like when you were at NASA, NOBODY is going to tell you what to do, or
how to do it. Thus, all of your problems.
--
Jim in NC
Danny Deger
If you can't answer the question -- throw around some random insults.
Danny Deger
Morgans
"Danny Deger" > wrote
> If you can't answer the question -- throw around some random insults.
OK, we will play it your way.
You wrote: Who runs this P-51 community that is trying to run the internet?
I
haven't heard from anyone.
Who runs it? Nobody, but Dudley was asked to pass the word along that the
P-51 community would appreciate seeing all of the conjecture stop, until the
report came out.
I would well imagine that seeing it all guessed about, and throwing around
blame is painful for those involved and their families. Can you comprehend
that? It is called courtesy.
As far as why you have not heard from anyone, why would you. You are NOBODY
to the P-51 community. Nobody.
What do we have to gain from continuing to guess about this accident? Will
it save any lives? No, because those that fly the airshows will make damn
sure that clearance is maintained on landing. Does that involve you? Are
you flying P-51's at airshows? No? Even if we did come up with all of the
answers, it would not benefit you anyway.
So, my original post stands. Any further response from you is just further
proof that you can not accept the truth.
--
Jim in NC
Danny Deger
"Morgans" <jsmo...@charterJUNK.net> wrote in message
Because you continue to throw grossly insulting random comments with your
request, my answer to you is NO. For example I never said I expected
someone from the P-51 community to contact me, but I thought they might post
something here -- like Dudley did. In a request for me to do something for
you and others, you call me a NOBODY (in all caps). Hardly a way to
persuade people to your calling.
To Dudley who didn't throw grossly insulting comment to me with his
request -- the answer is yes.
I do understand the pain of loosing a friend to an aircraft accident. As an
Air Force F-4 pilot I lost more than one friend to the hazards of flying
high perfomance aircraft.
On saving lives, I did use this forum to suggest to all that kicking in a
little slip a couple of times on short final is good practice. I do it all
the time. Maybe someone reading will do this someday and see the runway is
not clear. Just a little trick I learned from my first taildragger
instructor.
Danny Deger
Peter Dohm
The *really* hard part, at least for me, will be to remember to look this up
after the final report is released. OTOH, there may be a new thread started
to serve as a reminder.
I'm countin' on youse guys.
Peter
(This case is too tragic for a smiley)
Ron Lee
no one who is not part of it...can teach its pilots not to do stupid
things that kills.
Ron Lee
Danny Deger
my personal experience doing many of them -- after being trained by the Air
Force -- formation landings are dangerous. Maybe somebody reading this
message will someday avoid death by not attempting this dangerous maneuver
without proper training. Dudley has pointed out this dangerous maneuver is
not recommended in P-51 and was not the cause of the recent death of a
fellow pilot.
As to the P-51 community thinking I am a NOBODY, I have flown 3 aircraft
that are much higher performance than the P-51. By my standards it is
underpowered, climbs like a brick, has a low service ceiling, is very slow,
and isn't armed heavily enough to do much damage to enemy aircraft or enemy
forces on the ground. Also, I am an owner of a prewar, vintage taildragger
that I fly often. Last thing, as the Space Shuttle Entry Training Flow
Supervisor I literally wrote the book on flying from Mach 25 to Mach 1.
This is not a misprint. By anybody's standards I am a leading expert on how
to fly an aircraft at Mach 25. If this makes me a NOBODY to someone who has
flown or owns a P-51, then I want no part of this community. My guess is
you are a poor spokesman for the P-51 community.
Danny Deger
Morgans
"Danny Deger" > wrote
>
> Just because one their community, or at least claims to be, has to use
> grossly insulting comments to make a point, we don't need such comments
> about a fatal error made by a pilot.
I can't let that one pass.
Point to anywhere in any of the posts I made, that state or imply that I am
one of the P-51 community.
I expect that you will retract your post.
You started this little pissing contest. End it.
--
Jim in NC
Danny Deger
"Morgans" <jsmo...@charterJUNK.net> wrote in message
>
snip
> You started this little pissing contest. End it.
I simply asked for confirmation of who this P-51 community was that you were
being the spokesman for. A simple response, similar to the comments Dudley
made would have worked great. But that wasn't enough for you. You didn't
like me challanging you being a spokesman for a community you are not a part
of and dug deep down to come up with gross insults that had NOTHING to do
with the topic on hand.
If you don't like being flamed, I recommend you not flame others.
Danny Deger
Morgans
"Danny Deger" <danny...@hotmail.com> wrote more drivel, showing he has:
0.0 reading comprehension. You are one messed up dude. Seek help.
--
Jim in NC
Morgans
"Danny Deger" < wrote
> If you don't like being flamed, I recommend you not flame others.
I don't mind the heat, AT ALL.
I do mind being quoted as speaking for a group that I have no association
with.
I am still waiting for your retraction, placing me as speaking for the P-51
community.
For those of the community, I am sorry this person has attributed my
flaming, as though it is me speaking for you. It is me, personally, not any
P-51 people making any derogatory comments towards this little person.
I'm done. Since I fully expect that you will not retract anything or
apologize, I am doing it on your behalf.
--
Jim in NC
minus 1@charter.net Jeff
jf
"Matt Whiting" <whi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:ocOsi.11352$Oc.3...@news1.epix.net...
minus 1@charter.net Jeff
> But seriously - from this group, can you imagine that a new thread would
> NOT
> be started when the report is out?
Then can I opin on what I saw with my own eyes?
Danny Deger
"Morgans" <jsmo...@charterJUNK.net> wrote in message
>
> "Danny Deger" <danny...@hotmail.com> wrote more drivel, showing he has:
>
> 0.0 reading comprehension. You are one messed up dude. Seek help.
At least you are consistant. Just pull out the worst insults you can think
of and throw them around. You forgot to insult my mother and my dog while
you were at it. Why don't you go off to the warez groups where such netique
is the norm? I would like to keep this group on the topic of piloting
aircraft..
Danny Deger
Matt Whiting
You obviously outclass us all here (not!), so please take your ego and
go elsewhere.
Matt
Dudley Henriques
Eyewitness accounts of plane crashes are interesting when investigated.
At Cape May in 1971 at the Air Races we lost 5 planes in two separate
mid-air collisions in the same race. I was an eye witness to that event
along with many others. During the investigation, we interviewed several
eye witnesses. Many of these people had seen the event from the same
direction and the same angle. No two eye witnesses reported seeing
exactly the same thing. The macro picture was close, but the micro
details were quite different, and it's the details in such an event that
are needed by an investigating team.
I discussed this at some length with a friend of mine from the FBI on a
later occasion.
He verified what I had suspected; that there is a highly complicated
mental process involved with visual impact shock vs recall that involves
the mind "adjusting" what the eye has seen in an instant in time to
reflect a preconceived path of logic that involves the mind mentally
completing in recall by "adjusted" logic detail that the mind says
should be there to complete the picture.
The rest of it was WAY over my pay grade, but the bottom line is that
when you see something as traumatic as say a mid-air collision, your
eyewitness account of that event can be flawed.
Dudley Henriques
Danny Deger
> Danny Deger wrote:
snip
> You obviously outclass us all here (not!), so please take your ego and go
> elsewhere.
>
Sorry, I got kind of carried away there. I will try and calm down a bit.
Danny Deger
Matt Whiting
I'm glad to hear that.
Cheers,
Matt
Dudley Henriques
I wouldn't worry too much about it Danny. Happens all the time on
Usenet :-)
I remember when I first started posting on these forums years ago.
Someone would either come at me with something personal, or attempt to
tell me that something I had been doing with an airplane for 50 years
and teaching others to do with airplanes for 50 years was all wrong.
I'd of course answer immediately with my entire biography, quotes
attesting to my fantastic prowess as a pilot from everybody I knew who
didn't owe me money or a bottle of Jack Daniels, and 600 word posts
telling the world I knew what the hell I was talking about.
Then one day something happened that changed the way I viewed Usenet
even to this day.
Somebody posted to a forum that I wasn't Dudley Henriques because he
knew Dudley Henriques and I definitely wasn't him.
My wife immediately answered the guy telling him that if he had a
moment, would he please tell the real Dudley Henriques to come the hell
home because the one she had been living with for forty years could not
be coerced even with the promise of booze and sex into doing yard work!
Dudley Henriques
Danny Deger
Thanks for the post. Did you go back home?
Danny Deger
Dudley Henriques
Never left :-)
DH
Matt Whiting
Better to ask Mrs. Henriques! :-)
Matt
Dudley Henriques
She would tell you that I STILL hate yard work.
DH
Morgans
"Matt Whiting" <whi...@epix.net> wrote
> You obviously outclass us all here (not!), so please take your ego and go
> elsewhere.
Amen, brother!
NICE parting dig to the P-51 fliers, too, huh?
--
Jim in NC
Morgans
"Jeff" <jfranks1971 minus 1...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:I4_si.4$ZG...@newsfe02.lga...
Not my call. Dudley said the people that fly the P-51's would rather that
the speculation be held, and that we wait for the final report from the
NTSB.
If you think you have something valuable to report, Dudley would probably
not mind if you contacted him back channels, and then tell him what you saw.
He could pass it along, if it was a valuable clue.
I'm not speaking for Dudley, though.
--
Jim in NC
Danny Deger
I can't help it if the best they can do is fly obsolete, underpowered
aircraft :-) Having said that, the P-51 is number one on my list to fly
someday. It may not be a fast as an F-4, but it is a lot better looking.
Danny Deger
Peter Dohm
Very nicely stated.
Peter
B A R R Y
<danny...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It may not be a fast as an F-4, but it is a lot better looking.
>
I always thought the F-4 was way cooler looking.
I *like* P-51's a lot, but I've built lots of plastic F-4's!
Matt Whiting
The obsolete is THE attraction!
And compared to my 182, the 51 has plenty of power!!
Matt
mar...@webtv.net
waivered airspace.
I assume these pilots hold FAST cards in the very least. Other FAA
approved formation organizations are TRARON, FFI for the RV's and others
like the liason group that started it all. IIRC
The bible for all these groups is the T-34 manual.
The latest iteration is called the Formation Flight manual 4th Edition
sold by the EAA for $14.95. "now includes T-6, T-28, & P-51"
The TYPE SPECIFIC: P-51 Mustang page is page 26. written by Vlado
Lenoch
" Pitch and Landing: The leader will configure the flight as
appropriate for the break. Runway width will dictate the break
interval. On runways that are 100 ft. wide, the spacing can be as close
as 1600 ft. as aircraft will be landing on alternate sides of center.
In no case should any airplane land closer than 3000 ft directly behind
another. The leader will bring the flight over at the appropriate
speed, so that after the break, all aircraft will be able to end abeam
the point of intended landing at 1000 ft and at 170 MPH (147 KTS), where
the gear is extended and the turn to final "played" to fine tune ay
spacing.
Section landings are not done in P-51's due to control and visibility
limitations."
FWIW
Tex Houston
news:is0ab35dodk7i9tcg...@4ax.com...
F-4 is ugly enough to be a Navy plane!
Tex
Danny Deger
snip
> And compared to my 182, the 51 has plenty of power!!
And compared my Taylorcraft, your 182 has plenty of power :-) I do have the
85HP with the O-200 crankshaft. It probably puts out about 95hp. It only
wieghs 810 empty, so the climb rate isn't too bad.
I would, however, like to fly a piston plane with so much p-factor you have
to limit take off power on takeoff to not run off the runway. The F-4 had
very little p-factor. Very little yaw with an engine out even. In someways
the easiest airplane to land I have ever flown. It is impossible to bounch
and flaring is optional. You can just fly it until it hits the ground.
Danny Deger
B A R R Y
<texho...@pcisys.netvvv> wrote:
>F-4 is ugly enough to be a Navy plane!
>
While not exactly beautiful, I also think the A-6, F-8, E-2, and A-4
were cool looking, so maybe you're onto something.
All of this coming from a guy who also likes the looks of A-10's! <G>
Peter Dohm
A-10's!
Warn us before posting any girlie pics. <BFG>
Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address)
Most of those didn't come out good, but I happened to change to movie
clip mode when the planes were landing and caught the crash.
I've been trying to figure out how to let people see it without it being
exploited by being copied on to a bunch of other video sites. After all,
there was a fatality in the collision. I put a watermark on it.
Hopefully it isn't too distracting.
It looks like I was nearby the person who took the other clip that
appears on aero-news
Dudley Henriques
thing to do is to check with the NTSB first and let them see it as it
could aid in the investigation. The commercial end of the equation is
that you might be able to generate some income from the clip by hawking
it but that's doubtful at this point.
Naturally being involved in P51 flight safety, my advice is to call the
NTSB immediately and vet the film with them as soon as possible.
Thank you if you choose that path.
Dudley Henriques
Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address)
happened. I was among those who identified themselves and the NTSB
started interviewing people. After they talked with several people
individually they announced that they had good video of the accident and
wouldn't be needing us.
Since this video was only taken with a digital still camera, it's not
very sharp and only 15 FPS. I'm sure they got something taken with an
actual video camera that's much clearer.
I'm not looking to make anything off of it. I still get a bit of that
sick feeling when I watch it again. I just don't want someone else
copying it and selling it as their own.