Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

planeandpilotmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 118 posts

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

#81

Post by akiselev »

clamprecht wrote: post #73
akiselev wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Thank you! For what it's worth, it really shows! The vast majority of L39 videos online are low effort vanity dumps from hangar to hangar taken by a GoPro or two poorly positioned in the cockpit - you can rarely see the instrumentation, checklists, or anything remotely useful.

Your video towers above others. With the amount of cockpit detail visible in the main 3rd person view and in the B-roll like the red levers. Your hands visible on the throttle and stick so it's easy to see what you're doing and when the instructor has control. Beautiful exterior view from the wing during simulated emergencies and landing gear retractions. Down to the instructor's commentary during the nose tracking exercise with visible turbulence. Oh and most of the time, glare permitting, I can make out all of the gauges! ALL IN 4K!

The classroom videos are just icing on the cake with a cherry on top. One thing I didn't quite get though... what was the strap thing? :)

> 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!

Pretty much the plan I had, though I was planning to do aerobatic training with CP Aviation focusing on recoveries (I'm not an adrenaline junkie, just paranoid) before jumping into IFR. Any reason to do IFR before aerobatics?

A Mooney with long range tanks has been my plan for years because it would allow me to visit family in a single hop with a reasonable enough travel time to do it every other weekend (easy 5-10 hours per week), so that's encouraging. Once again, thank you!

Side note: how tall are you, if I may ask? That cockpit is cramped.

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

#82

Post by andrew_ »

thrill wrote: post #71
andrew_ wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

that's some cool perspective. thanks for taking the time to reply and for sharing.

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

#83

Post by fieryskiff11 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #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 storag…

No post body was provided.

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

#84

Post by EdwardDiego »

thrill wrote: 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…

I'm really hoping that the times you were hit by bullets while flying in a professional capacity in a warzone...

...otherwise those noise complaints are getting extreme.

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

#85

Post by akiselev »

thrill wrote: post #63
akiselev wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, civilian. How many hours of training did you receive before flying without a more senior pilot with you? The L39 type rating requirement is a thousand hours but it won't be in the jet itself. I plan to do aerobatic training and everything but last I checked the Jet Warbird Training Center program was under 20 hours over a few days which terrifies me. Is that really enough training?

Hmm, it's been awhile for me - I entered military training in 1980. ("In those days, wearing an onion on our belt as was the custom" - sorry :), I initially trained with a bog-standard civilian instructor at our local college (for those in ROTC) for about 20 hours, with most of us soloing after 10 hours and mostly being judged on simple airmanship and attitude. I paid for the next 20 hours myself with a different ins…

Thank you for all the insight!

How different are the T-37/38s from common civilian trainers like the 172? How good were the simulators back then (I haven't use any sims outside of consumer stuff so I have no real point of comparison)?

What do you mean by pursuing training without rush or struggle? Looking at the cost of fuel and rental for the first thousand hours, let alone the cost of the jet with new TFE engine, I'm much more scared of stretching out the training so much that I'm always rusty.

> to add a little to this since I started thinking about it, while the total flight time seems fairly low, we would go fly in absolutely any weather short of an actual thunderstorm, and the IPs for the most part made the students do the flying/navigating/communicating/planning/etc. Flying close formation in drafty clouds with pounding rain would humble a low-time pilot, and occasionally it'd be bad enough to get a grunt out of the mostly drowsing (it seemed) graybeard in the backseat.

That sounds scary - I've been taught so far that bad weather is one of the leading cause of GA fatal accidents thunderstorm or no. Were your trainers or the jets themselves just better at withstanding adverse weather? Or are we civies too risk averse? I can't imagine doing it in close formation.

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

#86

Post by EdwardDiego »

ghastmaster wrote: post #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…

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.

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

#87

Post by clamprecht »

akiselev wrote: post #81
clamprecht wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Thank you! For what it's worth, it really shows! The vast majority of L39 videos online are low effort vanity dumps from hangar to hangar taken by a GoPro or two poorly positioned in the cockpit - you can rarely see the instrumentation, checklists, or anything…

> what was the strap thing?

The instructor in that video was poking fun of the other instructor (who will show up in the next video) because he has a gut, and the stick in the rear cockpit hits his gut. So there's a "bungee" strap to hold the stick forward when you're getting in and out. But at the end of the video, the stick ends up hitting the first instructor's gut, so I poked fun of him at the end.

> Any reason to do IFR before aerobatics?

Nah, the order doesn't matter.

> how tall are you, if I may ask? That cockpit is cramped.

I'm 6'2 or about 187 cm, but I've had passengers up to 6'6 in the rear cockpit. Size usually isn't a problem. And it's less cramped than some MiG cockpits I've seen.

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

#88

Post by mertd »

MerelyMortal wrote: post #76
pigbearpig wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But 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.

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

#89

Post by 8bitsrule »

pigbearpig wrote: post #66
MerelyMortal wrote: post #56

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.)

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.
Post reply on HN