Live data from Hacker News

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

planeandpilotmag.com

71–80 of 118 posts

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

#71
post #62
post #38

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…

would a strike directly on the prop possibly cause a stall or some other force to move the fighter that far out of position, or change course that drastically? I'm curious given the distinct differences between piston engine and jet engine planes.

No.

While the prop is, uh, properly a wing, and technically hitting something with it would interrupt the airflow, they're quite strong and would likely just destroy the object, slightly damaging the prop. If it did damage it beyond usability, it'd been way more obvious in the video and with the prop breaking off.

If you're talking about the aircraft stalling, then it's unlikely as we don't see that significant of a movement in the brief second of video. Under g-load (an "accelerated stall") the buffer between the onset of the stall and the stall itself is decreased, and as I said elsewhere that while I have no familiarity with the handling characteristics of that aircraft, there's simply doesn't look like enough time for a stall to develop between when the aircraft supposedly hit a drone and for-sure hit the other aircraft. And from what I could see, the movement doesn't at all look like a stall, and from the moment I saw the two aircraft in the video you can see the intercept occurring - that's likely harder for the unfamiliar to see being unfamiliar with the concept of two disparate turning circles crossing at a point in the future, differing because of bank angle (one or even both "circles - i.e. vectors - could even be straight lines) and because of differing speeds.

From the limited videos I've seen, one pilot could not, or simply did not, see the other aircraft, either because of the bank angle blocking the view or not realizing the aircraft was there and being focused elsewhere (such as the aircraft in from of them) and simply ran into the other aircraft. How they got into that position is the difficult investigation, and Juan's YouTube video pointed out that the sudden airborne airboss directive was to cross flight paths, when they didn't brief such and rather unlikely had ever practiced such, and may not have even realized such.

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

#72
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.

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

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you have 1000 hours of real experience (hopefully in different types, not all in the same Cessna 172), 20 hours should be plenty for an L-39 type. Guys with previous military experience may only need 10 hours. I had no military experience, I did my L-39 type rating in 2020 and it took about 20 hours. Before that, about 500 hours of my experience came from a Columbia 400, which is a fairly fast, slippery piston s…

I've got your first day downloaded on my Plex and I've watched that video so many times in the last few months! Thank you so much for making it! Are you planning on putting the other days up? I remember you mentioned somewhere else that you have 5TB of video left to edit. That definitely makes me feel better. I've gone into pilot training with a lot of fear and it's always come out "omg this feels like home" so I'm h…

I definitely plan to edit the remaining footage and put it on youtube.. I will try to find the time over the winter holidays. Editing takes me a ton of time.

My recommendation is, 1) get your instrument rating and fly IFR enough to get comfortable doing that, 2) get some aerobatic lessons, including some unusual attitude recoveries, in any aerobatic plane, even if it's a Cessna 152 Aerobat, and 3) get some hours in a fast, slippery plane that requires you to plan your descents from 30+ miles out; could be a Cirrus, a Columbia, a Mooney, a Lancair, or a Bonanza, etc. Retractable experience is a plus too (get 10-20 hours in a Piper Arrow or something). And be prepared to pay for it all!

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

#74
post #60
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We do have confirmed strikes with fatalities from birds. Yup. > There is not much difference between a bird and a drone when an aircraft strikes it at speed... Open to debate. Even if true: There's a whole lot more birds near airports than illegally operating drones. So even if there's some tiny, absolute risk, the relative risk appears low.

There is no debate. The claim was, hitting a drone has a high chance of being fatal - the same high chance hitting a bird has... particularly in vulnerable stages of flight. Nothing you, or anyone else has offered counters this claim, because it's just reality. Hitting things in aircraft is never a good thing, and is always a significant cause for concern. We've been lucky so far more idiots haven't flown drones clos…

> There is no debate.

Sure there is. On average there are about 13000 bird strikes a year. What fraction of those result in a fatality? The FAA says a bit under 400 pilots die every year, however since 1990 there have been just 292 fatalities globally that can be attributed to wildlife strikes (and not all are birds).

That is a pretty clear repudiation of any claim that hitting a drone has a "high chance of being fatal."

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

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-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.)

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.)

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/

> SponsorBlock lets you skip over ... annoying parts of YouTube videos.

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

#77
post #60
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We do have confirmed strikes with fatalities from birds. Yup. > There is not much difference between a bird and a drone when an aircraft strikes it at speed... Open to debate. Even if true: There's a whole lot more birds near airports than illegally operating drones. So even if there's some tiny, absolute risk, the relative risk appears low.

There is no debate. The claim was, hitting a drone has a high chance of being fatal - the same high chance hitting a bird has... particularly in vulnerable stages of flight. Nothing you, or anyone else has offered counters this claim, because it's just reality. Hitting things in aircraft is never a good thing, and is always a significant cause for concern. We've been lucky so far more idiots haven't flown drones clos…

> the same high chance hitting a bird has.

It's unclear whether it's the same chance hitting a bird has. You assert it is.

As to a high chance of fatality from bird strike: no. There's >10k bird strikes per year in the US and most years there isn't a single bird strike related fatal accident. Estimates of death are on the order of 1 death related to bird strike per billion flight hours.

Even if drones are the same risk per collision, drones are much rarer near runways than birds.

There's no such thing in the world as zero risk, but if drones are a small fraction of a risk that's less than 1 death per billion flight hours, I'd say that we have bigger fish to fry.

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

#78
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Can you source this? I can't find any information on fatalities due to aircraft-drone collisions, topic of this article notwithstanding.

> 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_vehicl...

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

#79

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

> 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_vehicl...

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

#80
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

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.

Post reply on HN