Pilot, wing walker die in Ohio air show crash

[200hr Wonder]

Pilot, wing walker die in Ohio air show crash

Ohio officials say two people were killed when a plane carrying a wing walker crashed and burst into flames at a Dayton-area air show.

Dayton International Airport spokeswoman Linda Hughes and Ohio State Highway Patrol Lt. Anne Ralston told the Associated Press that two people died in the crash Saturday afternoon. Their identities were being withheld until family members were notified.

"It's part of what they do for a living," said Michael Emoff, chairman of the volunteer board that organized the 39th annual Vectron Dayton Air Show. "They know the risks. They do this because they love it. But it's devastating."

Emoff said no spectators were injured in the crash.

A video posted on WHIO-TV shows a wing walker hanging by the legs from the bottom of a wing. The plane turns upside down, leaving the acrobat sitting on the bottom of the wing as it flies inverted and close to the ground. The plans starts tilting before slamming into the ground as spectators scream.

The schedule for the air show listed only one wing walker scheduled to perform: Jane Wicker. Her web site chronicles a 25-year love of flying that led her to move into the world of wing walking. After being certified as a pilot, she started looking for more of a thrill and started performing outside the cockpit.

"I actually start off in the cockpit and I walk along the wing of an airplane – no safety line, no tether, no harness, no parachute," she told WDTN on Friday before the show got underway. "I get concerned when certain things are thrown at me that I'm not ready for (like bad weather). Those things concern me, but I'm never nervous or scared because I know if I do everything as I usually do, everything's going to be just fine."

Her web site also says that she performs the difficult move of sitting on the bottom of the wing as the plane flies inverted.

Spectator Shawn Warwick told the Dayton Daily News that he was watching through binoculars when the plane started flying inverted and "really close to the ground."

"She was sitting on the bottom of the plane," Warwick said. "I saw it just go right into the ground and explode."

Stay safe out there!

[Doc]

Sad day. The point of "wing walking" is.....

[Colonel Sanders]

no spectators were injured in the crash

and that's the objective.

[SMELS]

video on youtube is very disturbing.

[Siddley Hawker]

https://www.facebook.com/PWAS1

[Colonel Sanders]

Had some people contact me, to ask what happened.

Sorry - thought it was obvious. Wingwalker was on
bottom (high pressure) of wing when upright. All
is cool.

Pilot rolls inverted, a touch slow. Accident starts there.

Wingwalker is now on top (low pressure) of wing when
inverted. Because of slow speed, you can see the aircraft
sink inverted, and the pilot has no choice except to push
after rolling inverted to maintain altitude. See lift equation.
High AOA results.

Wingwalker disrupted airflow on now top (low pressure)
of wing. Asymmetric stall, wing drop.

Straight and level guys get upset when they have a little
ice and snow on the wing, disrupting lift. Try people on
the wing.

Anyways, that's three so far this year. On track for the
usual five out of the one hundred.

[crazy_aviator]

I figured it was the same thing. What is the fix ? A HIGHER speed approach and a little higher over the runway. Another thing, do this at altitute at progressively slower speeds until you figure out where your gonna get into trouble , inverted with tht lift (and drag) dumper on the wing

[AirFrame]

There are a number of videos of the same act on YouTube... The inverted pass in all of them seems to start much further away from the show line, and the pass seems to be at higher speed... Which makes sense as inverted you would need the higher airspeed.

I'd bet he missed his entry target somehow, and ended up too slow to fix the problem. The video is rather disturbing... The news cut it off before impact but the full video is on YouTube.

[PilotDAR]

Sad day. The point of "wing walking" is.....

+1

[cncpc]

Sad day. The point of "wing walking" is.....

Exactly.

[Colonel Sanders]

The point of

Ok, I'll bite. Lots of people do non-essential things,
including many people on this board. Lots of people
ride motorcycles, which result in thousands of deaths
every year in Canada and are completely unnecessary.
A motorcycle is an expensive, unnecessary luxury.
Virtually every fatal motorcycle accident in Canada
would not have happened if they had driven their car.

And the point is?

I could go on and on about boats and ski-doos and
firearms and airplanes, but do I really need to? All
unnecessary and dangerous. Hypocritical nanny state logic.

Pot, meet kettle. Try to be a little less smug.

Anyways, back on topic. For any low altitude aerobatic
maneuver, you will have an "entry gate" and a "top gate".
If the gates are not met in terms of airspeed and altitude
the maneuver is discontinued. This is how you stay alive,
doing low altitude aerobatics.

I strongly suspect he missed his entry gate. He should have
done a low pass, waved to the crowd, done a wingover to
regain energy, and continued with the sequence.

EDIT --

A Danish driver has died after crashing today at the Le Mans 24 Hours motor race in France.

Allan Simonsen was immediately treated by doctors and the race's medical team when he lost control of his Aston Martin and smashed into the safety barriers just 10 minutes into the race.
The 34-year-old, who was racing in his seventh race, was taken to the Circuit Medical Centre 'in a serious condition' but died from his injuries.

And the point of car racing is ... ?

Keep in mind that they finish in the
exact same place that they start.

[PilotDAR]

I could go on and on about boats and ski-doos and
firearms and airplanes, but do I really need to? All
unnecessary and dangerous.

Ah, but Colonel,

"necessary" is relative, so not too much traction for an argument there, but "dangerous", not so fast,

Motorcycles, seadoos, firearms (not that I have ever owned any) like boats, and for sure, airplanes, come with operating instructions. If you follow the instructions, they're not at all dangerous. Like any machine, if you operate it recklessly, someone is going to get hurt. A small fraction of our society prove this from time to time.

That's why I don't go to airshows where I believe there will be silly low altitude aerobatics. Instead, I take binoculars if I want to watch safe aerobatics, 'cause I choose to watch them done at appropriate altitude.

Wing walking? What for?......

[Colonel Sanders]

If you follow the instructions, they're not at all dangerous

Safety is guaranteed by paperwork. I will try to remember that.

[PilotDAR]

Safety is guaranteed by paperwork

Hmmm.... Well, literally, I suppose. If you spend your whole time reading the paperwork, and never flying it, you're probably very safe!

But, in the real world, at some point, people are going to start an engine and open the throttle. Understanding the "instructions" first, is a good idea.

The "instructions" are, for this purpose the sum of the operating handbook, in whatever form it takes, plus society's instructions - In Canada, the CARs, in the US, the FARs. I know that the CARs say (and I expect that the FAR's do too) that the pilot shall not permit a person to exit an aircraft in flight, other than for the purpose of parachuting. So if that is being done, it must be in accordance with a waiver. It was when I flew it, and when I exited without a 'chute. I presume that the wing walker exited in accordance with some form of display waiver from the FAA (I bet they're rethinking that now!).

Our CARs also prohibit external loads on fixed wing aircraft without an approval, a recent hot topic here. Gee, I think a wing walker is an external load! Passengers stay if not in their seat, at least in the cabin! I doubt that the operating instructions, including limitations, for that aircraft allow for a person as an external load. The FAA might have with that waiver, but I bet they're rethinking that now!

When you fly an aircraft outside its instructions, including its operating limitations, you're a test pilot. Test piloting can be okay, but it's done with a whole bunch of planning, and other safeguards. A low altitude roll entry sure is not one of them! Test pilots will operate the test aircraft beyond the proposed limitations during testing, to create a margin of safety when operated within the subsequent limitations - in the instructions!

I love watching and reading about test flying - when its done for "development reasons", by the pros. I dislike silly people testing the limits by dangling out of planes, and then flying silly maneuvers that way. Their doing that induces the people who write the CARs and FARs to write more!

It was interesting that when I test flew the Siai Marchetti 1019, it's Flight Manual actually said that if the Flight Manual did not permit something, doing it was prohibited. That's pretty clear!

I'm okay with TC and the FAA giving waivers for flying displays which require operations outside the normal altitude and separation regulations, but it irks me that they will apparently give waivers to fly display maneuvers which conflict with the approved or demonstrated maneuvering capability of the aircraft, and carry external loads that way!

[Beefitarian]

DAR, I agree that motorcycle safety is much higher if you are being cautious. Also wing walking is certainly not an example of sufficient use of caution. My buddy is much more cautious riding his motorcycles than me, I am pretty cautious, he hit a deer.

I'm pretty sure the part of the manual relating to that sort of thing read something like, "The activity of riding a motorcycle is inherently dangerous. There is risk of death or injury. Always wear a helmet..."

[sky's the limit]

Dar/Doc,

Sorry, I simply can't see your point here.

Would you have all of us just sit at home wrapped in foam padding?

One of the few redeeming features of human beings is that we push limits, we challenge, we strive, and we test ourselves. Where would you be if countless people in the past did not put their lives on the line to try new things? If someone wants to wing walk, and someone else wants to fly them, then imho they should be applauded for it, not chastised. These were talented and skilled people who knew what they were doing. They messed up and it cost them, yes, but your assertion that a role close to the ground makes them "test pilots" is a little far fetched.

The point of wing walking? The point is living... occasionally that results in dying. That's a risk they assume and accept, I'm not sure judging them for it is really what's required here. Should I stop racing my dirt bike? White water kayaking? Flying a Helicopter? Skiing out of bounds? Visiting war zones? I could die in all of those 'needless' pursuits, but they are the things that make my life worth while to me.

stl

[Colonel Sanders]

Also wing walking is certainly not an example of sufficient use of caution

Getting back in topic, I might point out that the
wingwalker in this accident didn't fall off the airplane
or make a mistake.

The pilot stalled it at low altitude with insufficient
altitude to recover. He made a big mistake that resulted
in two deaths.

Back off topic, you personally might think that a specific
activity (boating, sleds, handguns, car racing) is "too dangerous".

But that doesn't mean no one else gets to do it.

This is crucial to avoiding a "nanny state". I can only roll
my eyes when one of the Intelligentsia opines in the National
Post that he is incapable of doing something and because he
is the smartest and most capable person in Canada, therefore
no else cannot do it safely, and therefore the activity should
be banned.

Sigh.

Do recall that NO SPECTATORS were injured. The objective
was achieved.

[Old Dog Flying]

One "expert" stated that the reason for the crash was that a strong gust of wind blew the lift off of the wings!
I wonder which FTU he attended?

Barney

[Beefitarian]

Colonel, I just mean, "Wing walking is inherently dangerous. There is significant risk of death or injury."

[Sidebar]

TC defines safety as "management of risk to an acceptable level." What is acceptable risk to one person is unacceptable to others. My definition of acceptable risk has become far more conservative over the years, and I retired my motorcycle long ago.

[Beefitarian]

That last post was not what I'm trying to say either.

There are certain things you can only experience by taking a higher risk. I think it is up to the individual to decide if they wish to engage in such activities.

I believe there is greater risk on a motorcycle than in a car exactly like you wrote.

Wing walking presents greater risk than keeping your seat belt on. I believe that is why people do it. Also why others want to watch. It's a good reason for most not to.

I go away now.

[AirFrame]

Safety is guaranteed by paperwork.

I think this is Transport Canada's new quality slogan.

[PilotDAR]

Yeah, okay, if a person wants to be cargo, drag, and an external load all at once, are we to stop them? If a pilot wants to test fly a plane with unproven aerodynamic characteristics, are we to stop them? But we do outlaw attempted suicide... where is that line again?

[sky's the limit]

Yeah, okay, if a person wants to be cargo, drag, and an external load all at once, are we to stop them? If a pilot wants to test fly a plane with unproven aerodynamic characteristics, are we to stop them? But we do outlaw attempted suicide... where is that line again?

I understand the internet need for people to defend a position once taken, no matter what, but seriously?

You do know people have been wing walking for about 100yrs now, right? Attempted suicide? Come now.

stl

[Old fella]

Well......... every year always a few hit the ground and the general public gets “treated” to the episode/ aftermath in quality HD Video (progressive or interlace scan) on the usual YouTube sources. Sadly, the surviving family members get the treat as well. Sometimes I debate the purpose of it all, but whatever. Not much really to say, is there!