7 ms·
Dallas midair tragedy: New videos show startling change in flight path of p-63
- vforvendettador 4y agoIt's tragic if it's true about the drone. It's my worst nightmare whenever I'm flying these days.
- aaron695 4y agoIt 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?
- leetrout 4y agoVouched for your comment. It looks like you are shadowbanned. You might want to send an email to HN.
- chrisbaker98 4y agoHow can you tell that someone is shadowbanned?
- leetrout 4y agoAll their comments are dead
- fsckboy 4y agoif part of the way the shadowban works is that the banee isn't alerted, why are you alerting them which works against "the system"?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- adwn 4y agoBecause "the system" might have made a mistake. And even if the shadowban was warranted at some time, the poster might have improved their conduct in the meantime and should be given another chance. Usually, when I see a reasonable but dead comment, I vouch for it. If the commenter is shadowbanned and their other most recent comments are also reasonable and civil, I (sometimes) alert them to their status.
- chrisbaker98 4y agoI don't get it. How do you know that GP is shadowbanned? The post looks just like a normal post to me; I'm not even sure what it means for it to be dead.
- maxbond 4y agoLooking through their comments, it's pretty clear they know they're banned, why they're banned, spoke with dang about it at the time, and embraced being banned (I think because they feel it filters out low effort replies? Their statement was on the matter was terse, but semiparphrasing they said "I'm aiming for a shadowban" because "replies are the worst").
- leetrout 4y agoOh OK, I didnt look in detail.
- 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 agoA bullet-proof windshield protects the most vulnerable part (the pilot) a lot better than any civilian plane can.
- Alupis 4y agoMost (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 agoThe 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...
- maxbond 4y agoIt looks like a small black spec a few hundred feet off the ground to me. Drone seems pretty likely. Perhaps it's junk that fell off another aircraft, it could be a satellite falling to Earth for all I know, but drone seems like the first hypothesis to rule out. Or that the footage is inauthentic I suppose.
- maxbond 4y ago(My current understanding is now that the footage being inauthentic or misunderstood is the most likely.)
- leetrout 4y agoI 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 agoNo, 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 agoWell, 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...
- 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 agoThere'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 agohttps://archive.ph/gvIdC https://archive.ph/gvIdC
- dangle1 4y agoWell, if true, some drone operator now has a lifetime of painful guilt to look forward to.
- fasthands9 4y agoIm 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.
- david422 4y agoDefinitely restricted airspace around an airshow.
- tracerbulletx 4y agoThey might have had a drone there with approval to cover the event too.
- fasthands9 4y agoIf 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 agoOr 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.
- Rebelgecko 4y agoDon't you have to call the tower when you fly a drone within 5 miles of the airport? I can't imagine that the airport would've given the OK to someone flying so close to the runway.
- leetrout 4y agoThe 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 agoHere'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 agoThe 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.)
- MerelyMortal 4y agoYou 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.
- mertd 4y agoBut he doesn't have a sponsor segment? I enjoy his long explanations with lots of side commentary. You can find the long form narrative boring. That's ok. There is no right way to tell a story.
- WalterBright 4y agoOught to be able to find the wreckage of the drone to confirm.
- abracadaniel 4y agoThis 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 agoFWIW, 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 agoAny advice for a aspiring fighter jet pilot? (goal is to eventually fly an L39 Albatross)
- thrill 4y agoIf 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 agoFWIW, 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 agoI 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 agoHere’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 agoFormer 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 agoWell it is an anagram for “goblin war”
- anigbrowl 4y agoI wish I was a punk so I could use that as the name of my new band.
- vannevar 4y agoThe 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 agoThis 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 agoNonsense. 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 agoI'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 agoI 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 agoThat looks a lot like a compression artifact, especially given how it seems to blip out of existence between frames.
- jpgvm 4y agoNo 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.