Corsair accident at Oshkosh,When and which Corsair?

Trey Carroll · **Posted:** Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:34 pm

Invader26a wrote:

Anyone blaming the Corsair pilot for this crash, needs to Know the FULL story AND FAA regulations before shooting of their mouths. According to the Warbirds' Air Boss, he had cleared ALL aircraft for takeoff AS "A FLIGHT" (operating as four sections of two) Which means all aircraft takeoff TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME! That's what a "FLIGHT" means. It is common practice for Oshkosh operations to have aircraft takeoff and land several distances apart on the same runway at the same time. The 2-ship Bearcats were first with the Corsiars following. NO WHERE were there any aircraft cleared to "Taxi into position and Hold" Which is a specific clearance and MUST BE OBEYED! BUT the Bearcats did just that- they taxied into position and Stopped (or held in position) While the Corsairs followed the correct clearance given by the Air Boss- Quoting him..."I cleared ALL aircraft to take off AS A FLIGHT" The final cause was the fault of the Bearcats stopping and poor visibility on the Corsair's pilot (Corsairs are tail wheel aircraft with long noses). But obviously a clearance was not obeyed by the Bearcats, which is probably why the Corsair pilot (and/or his insurance co.) has filed the lawsuit.

Ref. NTSB

Just because an Air Boss clears the flight for takeoff doesn't mean everyone slams the throttle forward once they hear the call. The Bearcats pulled out on the runway, stopped, and started pulling forward again to make room for the rest of the flight. I believe the run-ups were to be done on the runway, so the Corsair pilots started taking off despite never having done a run-up. Boss may've cleared the flight, but does that mean *in your logic* that everyone can take off, regardless of their position in the flight? You can sit there for as long as you need when the Air Boss clears anyone for takeoff.

It is completely asinine for you to say part of the fault was the Bearcats stopping. Ladd hit the Bearcat. That's it. He did it, he was responsible for his element, his airplane, and his decision carried the consequences. It sucks, no one wanted it to happen, but he was the one in the cockpit, not us.

cwmc · **Joined:** Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:43 am **Posts:** 322

For Sabremeach,
I'm sure most people that fly Corsairs know that there is restricted visibility ahead when it's sitting 3 point. I've read a lot of NTSB reports too, they all say that when it's a tailwheel airplane. Please take my post as it was meant, do not confuse rules and law with keeping yourself safe.
Chris...

Matt Gunsch · **Posted:** Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:42 pm

Invader26a wrote:

Anyone blaming the Corsair pilot for this crash, needs to Know the FULL story AND FAA regulations before shooting of their mouths. According to the Warbirds' Air Boss, he had cleared ALL aircraft for takeoff AS "A FLIGHT" (operating as four sections of two) Which means all aircraft takeoff TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME! That's what a "FLIGHT" means. It is common practice for Oshkosh operations to have aircraft takeoff and land several distances apart on the same runway at the same time. The 2-ship Bearcats were first with the Corsiars following. NO WHERE were there any aircraft cleared to "Taxi into position and Hold" Which is a specific clearance and MUST BE OBEYED! BUT the Bearcats did just that- they taxied into position and Stopped (or held in position) While the Corsairs followed the correct clearance given by the Air Boss- Quoting him..."I cleared ALL aircraft to take off AS A FLIGHT" The final cause was the fault of the Bearcats stopping and poor visibility on the Corsair's pilot (Corsairs are tail wheel aircraft with long noses). But obviously a clearance was not obeyed by the Bearcats, which is probably why the Corsair pilot (and/or his insurance co.) has filed the lawsuit.

Ref. NTSB

They were cleared as a flight, but the flight cannot take off until the leader of the flight gives the order. When you are the leader of a flight, you are flying your plane and every other one in the flight, except you only have physical control of YOUR plane.

Carl once told me about leading the T-6s, he said it was like flying a 75 engine plane with control of 1 engine.

Invader26a, I suggest you read the T-34 Formation manual before you try talking about or flying formation. There are alot of us on here that walk the walk and talk the talk,

Sabremech · **Posted:** Tue Aug 02, 2011 2:33 pm

Hi Chris,
My post wasn't specific to you. The point being made is following instructions of the flight or formation lead. The rest was just part of the determining factors in the accident. Just as I prefaced it as "FYI".
David

Obergrafeter · **Posted:** Tue Aug 02, 2011 2:55 pm

No matter what the radio message........................NUMBER 1 always takes off before NUMBER 3 period. Simple as that.

Lynn Allen · **Posted:** Tue Aug 02, 2011 2:57 pm

Obergrafeter wrote:

No matter what the radio message........................NUMBER 1 always takes off before NUMBER 3 period. Simple as that.

Fixn' to type that... Its #3 job to look for #2 and #2 to look for #1 who is running the show....

67Cougar · **Posted:** Tue Aug 02, 2011 4:01 pm

If you are flying the aircraft, you are ultimately responsible for that aircraft, what it does, and the consequences. The ultimate responsiblity, except in the case of mechanical failure, rests with the pilot - not the FAA, not the tower, not the flight lead.

cwmc · **Joined:** Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:43 am **Posts:** 322

Sabremech wrote:

Hi Chris,
My post wasn't specific to you. The point being made is following instructions of the flight or formation lead. The rest was just part of the determining factors in the accident. Just as I prefaced it as "FYI".
David

Thanks David. Couldn't be sure.
Chris...

garbs · **Posted:** Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:20 pm

Speaking as one with no insider street cred, I will never forget looking at Howard's idling Bearcat through a 400 mm lens and hearing R-2800's at full take off power. Made the hair stand up on the back of my neck.

Only thing I have ever heard in support of either side is that you never give it full power (if you're not the leader) until you see daylight between the runway and the wheels of the flight element in front of you. Again - never been there or done that.

Tim Savage · **Joined:** Mon May 03, 2004 8:26 pm **Posts:** 630

Garbs wrote:

Only thing I have ever heard in support of either side is that you never give it full power (if you're not the leader) until you see daylight between the runway and the wheels of the flight element in front of you. Again - never been there or done that.

IIRC that FAST requirement came into place as a result of this incident. I believe that in prior revisions of the FAST regulations it was tail in the air of the element in front of you.

Obergrafeter · **Posted:** Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:45 am

As a result of that incident now everytime I clear a flight for take off (when air bossing) i say " X Flight cleared for take off... in sequence". Maybe it helps, can't hurt.

the330thbg · **Joined:** Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:06 pm **Posts:** 2713

I was more amazed (distraught) at the amount of time it took ANYONE to approach the wrecked Corsair to assist. No firetrucks, no nothing for what seemed like minutes. It just sat there and burned.

bluehawk15 · **Posted:** Wed Aug 03, 2011 3:00 pm

I'm not sure this is the reason for it, but we now cock our planes when lined up on the runway...especially tail draggers...so you can see the aircraft ahead of you.

the330thbg · **Joined:** Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:06 pm **Posts:** 2713

bluehawk15 wrote:

I'm not sure this is the reason for it, but we now cock our planes when lined up on the runway...especially tail draggers...so you can see the aircraft ahead of you.

sounds like a brilliant idea, no matter what the reason

Warbird Information Exchange

Corsair accident at Oshkosh,When and which Corsair?

Who is online