Talk:2007 Blue Angels South Carolina crash

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

G-Suit use

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have been reading this article and also looked at the references that had been given for the statement about the Blue Angels looking into using G-suits. Each reference did not state that the Blue Angels are looking into the use of G-suits, nor could I find any other article, reference, or informal statement about this. However, I did find a myriad of references both before and after the crash from the Navy and Blue Angles that they still planned on flying without G-suits due to the fact that the G-suits interfere with the precise handling of the F-18's during the close formation maneuvers. Here is the Blue Angles official response to the use of G-suits: [1] Brothejr (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The WP article says a G-suit would have saved the pilot's life but the article that is referenced says no such thing. this article says it would not have saved his life. Rsduhamel (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Copied from Blue Angels article prior to split

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Why was change at:03:07, 22 April 2007 64.20.133.43 (Talk) (22,838 bytes) (→April 21, 2007 crash) immediately tagged vandalism and reverted? SP

If you look at the very next dif, youll see that the same editor reverted back to your edit. He most likely made a mistake the first time. - BillCJ 03:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I see it now, thanks! Someone else made a change from "claims the life of solo-pilot Number 6" to "claims the life of a pilot". I'm going to revert this edit, as the former is correct and contains more detail. SP

This certainly isn't the first fatal accident the Blues have had, and I'm wondering about the prominence in the article that this one is getting. If any more is added, it probably should be split off into its own article. However, it would probably be appropriate to have summary list of all the major accidents in its own section. Akradecki 04:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think it comes down to the fact that this happened today, the last crash (1999) was pre-wikipedia. As per my note above, I think there should be a summery list remembering all of the brave pilots who gave their lives to the Blue Angels. I would be less qualified to document those events though. SP 6:00 April 22, 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that other crashes came before WP, the point is that this is a general, overview encyclopedia article. See the article on the Thunderbirds, for example, and see how the summary is handled. Just because an accident it momentarily big news in the media doesn't mean that it gets the same level of detailed coverage in an encyclopedia article. Akradecki 05:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

"turned on his side to cut back" The point is multi-faceted. 1) The Plane turned more sharply than was expected or than any of the other planes did on that turn; the move looked somewhat unnatural compared to the grace and fluidity of the previous 45 min spectacle. 2) The plane banked FULLY on it's side putting the wings perpendicular to the ground, and the cockpit sideways towards the row of trees.

These facts may prove significant to both the cause of the accident AND the reason the pilot didn't eject. As stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources primary and first-hand accounts may be appropriate in the case of a current-event, however the account should only make descriptive claims ( plane turned on it's side ), but should not attempt to analyze the data (hence the agreement that my follow-up paragraph was out of line). SP

The problem with the terminology is that it's distincly non-aviation. All airplanes "turn on their" side to turn...it's called a "bank". If you want to say the aircraft "banked more than others", that would be more appropriate, but the danger here is that you're not just reporting, you're analyzing. You're saying that this might be significant...however, are you knowledgeable what is significant in flying and aerodynamics? Fighters routinely bank up to 90 degrees, it's not at all unusual. Please leave the analyzing of what detail is relevant to the experts elsewhere, and lets keep Wikipedia to reporting what is reported elsewhere. Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~, which will insert your signature. You might want to consider registering and joining the aviation project as well. Akradecki 15:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Question

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So no one knows if the Angels will continue touring this year? They are scheduled to make a performance at Seymour Johnson AFB next month I believe. Was really looking forward to it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falcofire (talk • contribs).

Please sign your posts.
Please put new comments at the bottom of the page
They have not yet decided what will be done. Historically, the show will go on using a backup pilot or pulling a previous Blue Angel out of retirement. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

From a former squadron mate of Kojak's: Likely you will see them either fly in a few weeks without a sixth jet, or bring back Ted Steelman (the most recent solo pilot to leave) and practice for a month or two and then resume with all six jets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.159.67 (talk • contribs)

I just updated the Blue Angels's current status. They are already flying demos and are practicing with LCDR Craig Olson who used to be a solo pilot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.216.180 (talk • contribs)

Hero

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I have seen the video a few times, and in my opinion, the pilot was a true hero. From the looks of it, he tried to steer the plane away from the houses, so that he would not injure/kill anyone on the ground, in turn, taking his own life. If he had ejected, he would have lived, but possibly would have caused fatalities on the ground. (by 209.82.79.140 - added by — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC))Reply

Are you proposing adding something here? — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

That would fall afoul of Wikipedia Policy - No Original Research. Let's stick to what reliable sources has been reported. It is possible he was thinking of others, but just as equally possible he was trying to find a clear field to put it down on as it's a lot better than plowing into buildings and whatnot. Recommend no addition for hero entry; WP is not for personal memorials, original research, or speculation; only for proven and reported facts from multiple reliable sources. I do personally believe LCDR Davis was a fine and very talented naval aviator whom served honorably, and I'm just going to leave it at that. Dsf 04:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

IMHO, once the whole incident is sorted out, anything released to the public (including any posthumous citations or notes of heroism from the accident investigation board) should simply be put in here as a matter of record. If he was a hero and that's what the findings are, then so be it, but let's wait a little until that board is completed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was under the impression that this area was for discussion, and not for actual entries into the article.

Incapacitation

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

-From a former squadron mate of Kojak's- He didn't eject because he was incapacitated. When the investigation board releases the results, they will say that he pulled too hard on his re-join and blacked out. That is why he doesn't try to eject, because he couldn't.

The main article should be re-written because it talks heavily about him clipping pine trees and a wire. Those things happened on the way down and were not the cause of the crash.

I'm not going to re-write the article because last time I corrected a wiki article I got flamed by some loser moderator for "vandalizing."

I just thought that the article implies he crashed because he was being reckless or flying too low when that wasn't the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.159.67 (talk • contribs)

I have rewritten the entry because it was the right thing to do as early reporting on aircraft crashes are often incorrect. I added a section called early reporting to address this issue. Also, few of the links remain available for this early reporting. I also hope this copy edit removes the implication he was flying recklessly because I have not seen any reporting or evidence that he was doing so. I also added a statement about pilot incapacitation because the unsigned user with the IP address of 71.177.159.67 correctly made the statement on 29 April about the future flight plans, which was subsequently confirmed in a news release from 12 May. This would indicate that this unsigned user may have unique insight and thus we should not discount the very real possibility that pilot incapacitation will, in the end, prove to be the cause of the incident. Theflyer 15:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

At the point where he was in the program, he would have been looking over his shoulder to acquire the join up point. He managed to hit the only 120 foot tree around. A bad day. Things happen fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Lincoln (talk • contribs)

Black Box

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The "Black Box" that the F-18 uses isn't really a flight data recorder like the public is used to seeing when an airliner crashes. It's a DFIR (Deployable Flight Incident Recorder), which is a subtle difference, but one that may be interesting. Snaylor15 21:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The report can be found at the following:

http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/miscellaneous-reports/BlueAngelsJAGReport.pdf

==

Originally when the accident occurred and was reported on wikipedia, it was written that there was an investigation into what caused the crash, and that the investigation should release a report by "mid-may". It is now late July, and there has not been an update on the blue angels crash in South Carolina. Did the investigation conclude? And if so, where can the report be found if the results are not reported on the wikipedia article? I, user ryrodman1, have searched the internet for the report of the investigation, though it was a cursory search, and have been unable to locate the report. Does anyone else know the fate of this report? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ryrodman1 (talk • contribs)

Update#2

The Report was supposed to be out by September 1, 2007 - proof here: http://www.beaufortgazette.com/local_news/story/6612335p-5889715c.html

I hate to speculate but the delay seems to support some type of pilot error - as in an over-g causing unconsciousness -the airplane can pull more gs than the pilot. Look at the video of the incident and he tried to turn a square corner to catch up on the rejoin. Some could have broken but the video shows no parts coming off- and there is no suggestion of a bird strike - I was at the Beaufort Airshow displaying my own aircraft and it did not look like anything happened - the airplane looked like it simply flew into the ground - which - if therewas over-g with not enough power - the airplane could stall. This is PURE speculation but if there was a broken airplane or a bird strike - the report would be out by now - pilot error requires all sorts of PR approval and flight team to understand the consequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comanchepilot (talk • contribs) 15:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

9/8/07 - update #3

I think it was pilot error, resulting in black out and unconsciousness, but like everyone else, I'm speculating. I've seen the video myself as well, and that's what it looks like. He goes into a hard turn to rejoin the group but suddenly stops turning, but remains sidways, and loses altitude until impact. I've seen the blue angels at the Mira Mar Airshow in San Diego myself, and I've never seen them, or really anyone for that matter, bank as hard and sharp as he did in the video. I'm simply curious to see the official report of what happened. I'll try to search around for the report more often and update if I see it. Ryrodman1 23:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply