Mustang accident

[Helrza]

Damn!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCNePeKn3Tg&feature=player_embedded


Condolences to all those involved :(

[Oldschool61]

Heres link to story

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/16/national/main20107634.shtml

[GOZR]

:(

[Hunden]

I sure hope it wasn't the fact that he was 80. I feel for the families that just went to enjoy their day. Sometimes you just have to know when to stop and not just for your own good but for those around you.

[Helrza]

have a look at the pi cin the article showing her upside down... 2 things that dont look right to me, one from the back of the radiator inlet, u can see a mist/smoke coming out, and 2nd the elevator trim tab looks to be gone.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/air-show-plane-crash-at-least-12-dead-20110917-1kens.html

[ATAG_Doc]

Here's the specs.

http://www2.leewardairranch.com/racing/galloping-ghost-specs

Heavily Race Modified. 3800 HP Max Speed: ~550 mph at 5,000 ft

That was a beast!

Jimmy Leeward

https://www.facebook.com/JimmyLeeward

[ATAG_Doc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGdi5FMaNFI&

[Madfish]

What's making me most sad is another thing. The victims and how they dealt with them.

It appears that in the US it's still practice to transport people into hospital instead of assessing their state on location and acting based on that. The article tells that story.
The article also says that the hospitals then didn't even have the capacity to treat the wounded.

Now, being German I remember the Ramstein incident where the exact same thing happened. The US mil just stuffed victims into transports and busses and drove off of the scene - the medics that arrived found chaos. Some of the transports didn't even find their way straight to the hospital (and we're talking about 3+ hours here) and if it was very unorganized and not balanced properly by the emergency services.

For such shows there should always be extra caution and they should also prepare for a number of injured way higher than 50 or 100. They should make sure that a number of on the scene medics and transports are available and also that that all hospitals in the area are prepared and notified.
To be honest this should go for all the bigger events as many of them have a tendecy to just go wrong.

RIP to the victims and good recovery to the injured.

[Ze-Jamz]

Dam that's very sad

[Sternjaeger II]

check out this pic

http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-201_162-10009462-3.html?tag=page;previous

the pilot is not in view, and considering the steep angle at which it came down, it is likely he's leaning forward (which is kinda hard, cos you're strapped in), my very wild guess is that he wasn't conscious (maybe dead?) before he hit the ground. The plane has no visible structural damage, so a steep plunge like that is really unlikely unless it's actually pushed down :(

As much as I like vintage planes, I think that Reno races, other than ruining beautiful warbirds, is an unnecessary risk.

[bongodriver]

The plane has no visible structural damage

But the extended tailwheel makes me very curious....

[Sternjaeger II]

But the extended tailwheel makes me very curious....

yeah man, maybe he fainted/collapsed or whatever and hit the emergency gear release, considering he's pitching down the main gears are being kept in by the g force of the pitch.. it was just a few seconds.

[bongodriver]

yeah man, maybe he fainted/collapsed or whatever and hit the emergency gear release, considering he's pitching down the main gears are being kept in by the g force of the pitch.. it was just a few seconds.

but the main gear doesn't even look like it's cracked open, no g will stop the initial extention.

[ATAG_Doc]

Dramatic NEW video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNtERSeYMUM&

[major_setback]

check out this pic

http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-201_162-10009462-3.html?tag=page;previous

the pilot is not in view, and considering the steep angle at which it came down, it is likely he's leaning forward (which is kinda hard, cos you're strapped in), my very wild guess is that he wasn't conscious (maybe dead?) before he hit the ground. The plane has no visible structural damage, so a steep plunge like that is really unlikely unless it's actually pushed down :(

As much as I like vintage planes, I think that Reno races, other than ruining beautiful warbirds, is an unnecessary risk.

It is clearly damaged. A trim tab is missing:

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Vy6fF0D.pWevRzT36FCQRQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD01MTk7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/5e7548b1ec89fb14f80e6a70670062b6.jpg

[Blackdog_kt]

According to a local news website the initial scenario goes something like this:

1) Trim tab gets separated while doing quite a bit of airspeed (some say as much as 450 knots). This alone means you get a sudden pitch-up motion due to the sudden absence of any nose down trim to keep the plane going straight at such a high speed.

2) On top of that, the connecting rod/wire between the two tabs is broken and the second trim tab on the other elevator is stuck in nose up trim.

3) As a result of the rapid pitch up, the pilot pulls about 9-10Gs and passes out.

4) Pilot can't regain control in time due to GLOC (G-induced loss of consciousness).

The short report then goes on to mention that a very similar event occurred in these races with another modified mustang back in 1998. In that case the pilot was also subjected to about 10Gs but was far luckier, he just woke up at an altitude of 9000ft and proceeded to recover and land normally.

[heywooood]

this was an horrific tragedy - very sad

Following both threads here - this one and the locked one it seems that people are struggling with the pilots age, some perceived lack of regulation or restriction on crowd proximity to the runway / apron area, and the Galloping Ghosts most recent, untested? modifications?...and lets not talk about flight certs - no one wanted to pull Bob Hoovers ticket either.

It looks like a perfect storm to me -

In most of these situations, its rarely one thing that causes the worst kinds of mayhem
Rather it is a stew...

Why does a 74 year old man need to fly a tight race track with several other planes at over 500mph in front of a grandstand full of women and children? because he can?

Why would he do so in an aircraft he knew had been modified, but was as yet uncertain of how exactly those airframe and power plant modifications might change the flight characteristics of his plane...not really shaking it down..but rather - taking it directly into a crowded race environment? because he "thought" he could handle it? that's Mavericky no?

When a pilot in one of these events feels a tug, or transient control response, or experiences an unusual vibration - or feels lightheaded or otherwise gets even a split second sensation that things aren't right - he is to pull up and away from the grandstand and get his plane out of the race area as quickly as possible. That is the procedure and the rule.

What if he felt the tug of the trim tab departing and pulled back on the stick to follow procedure...same time as the loss of trim also caused a pitch up moment thus causing an explosive positive G effect? - ANYONE would have blacked out instantly - that would explain the "empty cockpit" photos - but it does not excuse the pilot. He made the decision to race - he "wanted to see what the Ghost could do" if he pushed her.


People take risks all the time, its in our nature.
Some risk their money, some their jobs and some risk their lives....thats ok when they aren't betting with my money. This guy was gambling with other peoples lives, and I don't care what a great pilot he WAS or what he did for aviation back in the day...he took a huge risk and, well they're still counting the losses.

[SlipBall]

[QUOTE=heywooood;339370]t

ANYONE would have blacked out instantly - that would explain the "empty cockpit" photos - /QUOTE]


The pilot would have been in the photos slumped over...they think that the seat let go, slid back.

[Crumpp]

The races simply will go back to being private events closed to the public. I think they need too.

After this incident and our lawsuit happy public, I don't want them there.

The owners and pilots can enjoy their airplanes without them.

I think we should ban racing cars too. I mean 83 people died in one wreck at LeMans. Speed and power of cars has increased considerably since then yet the tracks are just the same.

Time bomb waiting to happen.....

http://www.ewilkins.com/wilko/lemans.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBe_5HuKgjg

[Ze-Jamz]

I think your quite safe from an 'exploding F1 car' mate when spectating

[Sternjaeger II]

The races simply will go back to being private events closed to the public. I think they need too.

After this incident and our lawsuit happy public, I don't want them there.

The owners and pilots can enjoy their airplanes without them.

I think we should ban racing cars too. I mean 83 people died in one wreck at LeMans. Speed and power of cars has increased considerably since then yet the tracks are just the same.

Time bomb waiting to happen.....

yup, same goes with rally races.

I personally don't like what they do at Reno, but hey, it's their money and hobby, so let them be.
It's probably a matter of revenue anyway: F1 surely moves more money and sponsors, so "the show must go on" is an acceptable double standard.

But if every time we have an accident we have an accident we have to go through the "shall we ban it?", we're gonna end up in a state of control...

[bongodriver]

I blame the media, if a guy on the street just says 'hey, someoned died in x event', the response is 'oh dear thats sad......hey ho', but when the media get ahold of it and repeat it every 15 minutes with their classic 'spin' on things.......it's a wholr lot of a bigger deal.

[winny]

But if every time we have an accident we have an accident we have to go through the "shall we ban it?", we're gonna end up in a state of control...

Are you sitting down? I agree with you :)

There are such things as freak accidents, you can't legislate for freak accidents or you end up with freak legislation. People die in accidents all the time. If it's a numbers thing then there's 55 people who died in farming accidents this year in the UK, let's ban farming. 650 peope were killed by falling down stairs or steps. Ban them quick!

It was a horrible accident. The truth is that if you attend Reno anually, you're more likley to die in a car crash in the same year than at the event.

[mustang137]

Ahhh, now I get it, I thought the trim tabs were like the little tabs adjusted on the ground to help the plane's trim in level flight, not the whole trim surface. Now I understand how such little damage did that.

Ahh, no. The tabs are small surfaces on the trailing edge of the elevators and are adjusted by the pilot using the elevator trim wheel in the cockpit.....At least that's how the standard Stang is setup. I have no idea if the trim system in racing A/C is different.

Adjusting the tab down causes the elevator to pitch the nose up etc.

[mustang137]

According to a local news website the initial scenario goes something like this:

1) Trim tab gets separated while doing quite a bit of airspeed (some say as much as 450 knots). This alone means you get a sudden pitch-up motion due to the sudden absence of any nose down trim to keep the plane going straight at such a high speed.

2) On top of that, the connecting rod/wire between the two tabs is broken and the second trim tab on the other elevator is stuck in nose up trim.

3) As a result of the rapid pitch up, the pilot pulls about 9-10Gs and passes out.

4) Pilot can't regain control in time due to GLOC (G-induced loss of consciousness).

The short report then goes on to mention that a very similar event occurred in these races with another modified mustang back in 1998. In that case the pilot was also subjected to about 10Gs but was far luckier, he just woke up at an altitude of 9000ft and proceeded to recover and land normally.

If the standard P-51 trim system is still in use, then.....

Only one cable controls both left and right elevator trims (using cable drums). Therefore, if one trim tab fails, the other would not stick up or down but would more than likely move back inline with the trailing edge of the elevator. Max up deflection is 10deg with down being 25deg.

Also looks as if 1/3 of the L/H trim tab is still there?

[Jabo2009]

The races simply will go back to being private events closed to the public. I think they need too.

After this incident and our lawsuit happy public, I don't want them there.

The owners and pilots can enjoy their airplanes without them.

I think we should ban racing cars too. I mean 83 people died in one wreck at LeMans. Speed and power of cars has increased considerably since then yet the tracks are just the same.

Time bomb waiting to happen.....

http://www.ewilkins.com/wilko/lemans.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBe_5HuKgjg

no offence meant, but your talking serious bullshit here...why should races be closed to public? everone goes there at his own risk...on every official FIA sancioned event you have signs with: "MOTORSPORT CAN BE DANGEROUS, ATTENDANCE AT YOUR OWN RISK" its even shown on your event ticket...same with airshows

safety measurements on todays airshows and motorsport events are at a very high level in the western world, but you cant avoid accidents by 100%... accidents happen and will happen, you only can reduce probabilty of people getting hurt or killed...

but saying these events should be banned generally is totally stupid...

let other have their hobby and passion...if u r afraid of getting hurt dont go there, as simple as that..

[IamNotDavid]

I think we should ban racing cars too. I mean 83 people died in one wreck at LeMans. Speed and power of cars has increased considerably since then yet the tracks are just the same.

Time bomb waiting to happen.....



That LeMans crash was over 50 years ago. Many changes have been made to the cars and the tracks to make auto racing safer. However, it auto racing had the same safety record over the last 50 years as Reno, it would have been ended by now.

[IamNotDavid]

It was a horrible accident. The truth is that if you attend Reno anually, you're more likley to die in a car crash in the same year than at the event.

How are you calculating those odds? There are 2 pilot deaths for every 5 Reno shows. It was inevitable that an aircraft would eventually hit the crowd.

[IamNotDavid]

I blame the media, if a guy on the street just says 'hey, someoned died in x event', the response is 'oh dear thats sad......hey ho', but when the media get ahold of it and repeat it every 15 minutes with their classic 'spin' on things.......it's a wholr lot of a bigger deal.

It's not the media's fault that 2 pilots die for every 5 Reno events.

[winny]

How are you calculating those odds? There are 2 pilot deaths for every 5 Reno shows. It was inevitable that an aircraft would eventually hit the crowd.

If I went to Reno the odds of me dying there are less than they are for me dying in the same year from a car crash, statistically, as a spectator.

200,000 people attended reno over the week, 11 died.

That's 11 out of 200,000 or 1 death for every 18,200 people there, roughly. The fatalities for road accidents in the USA for 2009 was 11 for every 100,000 people in the population or 1 death for every 9,100 people. Nearly twice the odds.

That's how I calculated. You have to be at Reno to die at Reno, 199,989 people who were there didn't die there this year. You can't ignore them.

[IamNotDavid]

If I went to Reno the odds of me dying there are less than they are for me dying in the same year from a car crash, statistically, as a spectator.

200,000 people attended reno over the week, 11 died.

That's 11 out of 200,000 or 1 death for every 18,200 people there, roughly. The fatalities for road accidents in the USA for 2009 was 11 for every 100,000 people in the population or 1 death for every 9,100 people. Nearly twice the odds.

That's how I calculated. You have to be at Reno to die at Reno, 199,989 people who were there didn't die there this year. You can't ignore them.

There certainly weren't 200,000 people there on the day of the accident. How can you tell that 200,000 attended? All I see is a memorial page when I go to the Reno air race website.

[IamNotDavid]

I'd like to see the attendance numbers at Reno when there is no air show. How many people actually show up just for air racing?

[IamNotDavid]

Umm, 0. People don't show up at airports in America to view passenger planes taking off.

Actually, yes they do. They're called "spotters". I don't see the attraction, but they definitely exist.

[Crumpp]

why should races be closed to public?

The races started out as private events. Private individuals own those aircraft and race them as a very costly and expensive hobby. Nobody makes money at the races and allowing spectators is catering to the publics own personal enjoyment. The proceeds from the ticket sales offsets the expense of handling parking, a place for them sit, and the higher insurance rates the airport has to pay for having spectators.

Why should they be closed to the public? Life entails risk....

If an owner puts the fruits of labor at risk by sharing the a joy of aviation and passion for flight with the public, he runs the risk of somebody who climbs on the wing to look in the cockpit, slipping, falling, and suing him.

Now he isn't passing on anything, even for himself. He is paying lawyers and spending time in court.

No thanks....

[winny]

There certainly weren't 200,000 people there on the day of the accident. How can you tell that 200,000 attended? All I see is a memorial page when I go to the Reno air race website.

Attendance for Reno over the week is around 200,000.. (Google reno air race attendance figures). I did the week figures because I couldn't get a daily figure and also because you were using the 'per-event' numbers. If you do it by day.

If you do it by day then obviously you'll get a different number.

[Crumpp]

there is way too much money in the sport between NASCAR, FIA, WRC just to name a few. Anything with that much money involved (and prestige for the manufacturers) is simply not going to let the deaths of a few (relatively speaking, from the point of view of politicians and billionaires) people interfere with their money.

I agree. That is the difference. There is no money to be made in air racing. Otherwise, it would be as big as other more lucrative "professional" sports.

Air racing is a great way to turn millions into thousands very quickly.

The only thing air racing does is spark peoples interest in aviation. Opening the races to the public allowed them to experience the power and speed of the pinnacle of WWII era piston engine aircraft development. It is a way to share a passion.

It will will just go back to being a private event without public access.

[IamNotDavid]

Attendance for Reno over the week is around 200,000.. (Google reno air race attendance figures). I did the week figures because I couldn't get a daily figure and also because you were using the 'per-event' numbers. If you do it by day.

If you do it by day then obviously you'll get a different number.

That includes the air show, which distorts the numbers.

[Crumpp]

200,000 x $10 General Admission = 2,000,000 USD

That is nothing when compared to the expenses of a single unlimited class racer.

[IamNotDavid]

The only thing air racing does is spark peoples interest in aviation.

Right up until the inevitable crash and cloud of black smoke. Then it does the opposite.

[Jabo2009]

Now he isn't passing on anything, even for himself. He is paying lawyers and spending time in court.



whats wrong with that? Honestly, I dont get your message.

What world are you living in? car races and airshows should become strictly private again? organised only as VIP club events and the public has to stay on the other side of the fence and watch from 1km distance?

come on...you must be joking

[IamNotDavid]

whats wrong with that? Honestly, I dont get your message.

What world are you living in? car races and airshows should become strictly private again? organised only as VIP club events and the public has to stay on the other side of the fence and watch from 1km distance?

come on...you must be joking

No, he's saying that Reno air racing will be strictly private. Air racing has nothing to do with air shows.

[Jabo2009]

No, he's saying that Reno air racing will be strictly private. Air racing has nothing to do with air shows.

what about that? it started as an public event from day 1, which made it legendary ...

http://www.redbullairrace.com/cs/Satellite/en_air/Red-Bull-Air-Race/001238611393596

[IamNotDavid]

what about that? it started as an public event from day 1, which made it legendary ...

You misspelled "infamous".

[winny]

That includes the air show, which distorts the numbers.

The whole accident distorts the figures.

From a few sources it would appear that about 8,000 people were there on the day. If you take it as an isolated incident then obviously that's a much higher chance of being killed. But it only applies to that one race. If you take it as an isolated incident then the number of deaths per race would be 11, and it isn't.

If you get the total number of races, then the total number of people who attended these races and the total number of people killed you'd get the average chance of being killed at the race. I couldn't find total attendance to date, or how many races there have been since it started.

But, 30,000+ people were killed in the US by traffic related accidents.
If it's about unaccetable numbers of people dying then however you dress it up it's trivial when compared to other accidents.

If it's about people smashing vintage warplanes into the ground then why mention deaths. Racing any machine is, has always been, and will always be, dangerous to the participants and the spectators. But the number of people who die is miniscule as a percentage of the overall death total for a year.

Total number of deaths in the USA in 2009 - 2,423,712 - total killed by an out of control aircraft that was involved in a race - 11. (this is actually wrong because I'm using 2009 and nobody died as a result of watching an air race in 2009) But you see my point.

It was tragic but it was also a freak.

[IamNotDavid]

It was tragic but it was also a freak.

Aircraft crash regularly at Reno. As I have pointed out repeatedly, 2 pilots die for every 5 events. That one of them finally crashed into the crowd is not especially freakish considering how often they crash.

[Crumpp]

what about that? it started as an public event from day 1, which made it legendary ...

http://www.redbullairrace.com/cs/Satellite/en_air/Red-Bull-Air-Race/001238611393596

No, the first Reno air races were not open to the public. After Bill Stead died, they became public events.

The first Reno air races, in 1964 and 1965, were organized by World War II flying ace Bill Stead. They took place at Sky Ranch airfield, a dirt strip barely 2,000 feet (610 m) long, which was located in present-day Spanish Springs. After Stead AFB (20 miles to the west, and named in honor of Bill's brother, Croston Stead) was closed in 1966, that field was turned over for public use and the races have been held there since then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_Air_Races

When the Reno Air Races started in 1964, they were based on the premise that out in Nevada’s high desert, where there was no one around to suffer collateral damage, all bets were off. If you came to race, you knew the risk and accepted the consequences.

http://www.larrylowe.com/content/air-racing-101

There is no money to be made racing airplanes. Owners only have the opportunity to spend a lot of their hard earned wealth doing it. Owners do it because they love it. Opening it to the public was just a way to share their passion for aviation. It will go back to being a private venture for those who have worked hard to own these aircraft and not something shared with those not fortunate enough to have them.

[Sammi79]

Aircraft crash regularly at Reno. As I have pointed out repeatedly, 2 pilots die for every 5 events. That one of them finally crashed into the crowd is not especially freakish considering how often they crash.

It is absolutely freakish considering it has happened only once in the entire history of the sport.

You seem to fail to grasp the amount of racing that goes on at Reno, It is hardly 1 event. Several days qualifying followed by a week of heat racing with several races per day, is as I have pointed out to you repeatedly, closely comparable to a whole season in F1 which has a higher death rate per year.

If people want to kill themselves having fun in their own machines, or want to get close enough to watch the spectacle therefore accepting the slight risk that an aircraft may crash on them then who are you or anyone to tell them that they shouldn't? Do you think people would be thankful for being deprived of their passion? I personally can think of worse ways to go.

[winny]

Aircraft crash regularly at Reno. As I have pointed out repeatedly, 2 pilots die for every 5 events. That one of them finally crashed into the crowd is not especially freakish considering how often they crash.

It's racing - it's the very edge of performance - people die racing motorcycles all the time. Isle of Man TT kills at least one rider per year, That's 1 for each event.

I beg to differ, it's extremley freakish. It happened directly in front of the crowd, it happened at low level, it has never happened before. Explain to me how it's not a freak?

2 pilots per 5 events = 1 every 2 and a half years. More people die in the US from lightning strikes per year.

[IamNotDavid]

It is absolutely freakish considering it has happened only once in the entire history of the sport.

You seem to fail to grasp the amount of racing that goes on at Reno, It is hardly 1 event. Several days qualifying followed by a week of heat racing with several races per day, is as I have pointed out to you repeatedly, closely comparable to a whole season in F1 which has a higher death rate per year.


The fact that it has only happened once does not necessarily make it freakish. The sample size (47) isn't very big. I out of 47 really isn't that freakish, especially when you consider how often they crash.

And is isn't close to an F1 season at all. Each F1 event also has qualifying and practice. A Reno event is similar to a single F1 event, not an entire season. Comparing a single Reno event to an entire season of F1 is absurd.


If people want to kill themselves having fun in their own machines, or want to get close enough to watch the spectacle therefore accepting the slight risk that an aircraft may crash on them then who are you or anyone to tell them that they shouldn't? Do you think people would be thankful for being deprived of their passion?

Reno racers don't have the right to put people in danger just because they want an audience. Nor do I care what they think about being shut down.

[IamNotDavid]

It's racing - it's the very edge of performance - people die racing motorcycles all the time. Isle of Man TT kills at least one rider per year, That's 1 for each event.

Racing motorcycles is probably the only thing dumber than racing aircraft.


2 pilots per 5 events = 1 every 2 and a half years. More people die in the US from lightning strikes per year.

The sample size of "people in the US" is considerably larger than "Reno pilots". But thanks for proving my point about not understanding how dangerous it is.

[Gerbil Maximus]

Having read all of your tripe through this thread and all your many other threads I suspect as David Hayward, it is clear you are a troll and trolling is your hobby. You are a disgusting animal and nothing is lower than your wonderful self. Satan would be proud.

[IamNotDavid]

Having read all of your tripe through this thread and all your many other threads I suspect as David Hayward, it is clear you are a troll and trolling is your hobby. You are a disgusting animal and nothing is lower than your wonderful self. Satan would be proud.

Since when did "posting stats which back up my views" become trolling?

[JG52Krupi]

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2011/09/20/von-reno-air-crash-new.kgw

Not sure if this has been posted before... very sad moment in reno air race's history.

P.S. From what I have read only 29 people have died at reno... where do you get your facts from David.... Judging from your posts if I were to guess, I would say it had to be from your rear end.

[IamNotDavid]

From what I have read only 29 people have died at reno... where do you get your facts from David.... Judging from your posts if I were to guess, I would say it had to be from your rear end.

You're close. The 20 pilot deaths in 47 years number comes from Bongodriver. I suspect the 29 deaths includes the recent crash.

[winny]

Racing motorcycles is probably the only thing dumber than racing aircraft.

You could well be right, but nobody is marched at gun point and told to race or else, it's a personal choice. If they get killed then it's because of a decision they made.



The sample size of "people in the US" is considerably larger than "Reno pilots". But thanks for proving my point about not understanding how dangerous it is.

It's less dangerous than farming. More farmers die in the US per year than race pilots.

What about the 30,000+ per year that die in road accidents? Do we ban all cars because somebody might have an accident?

So, what else that's dangerous should we ban that could accidentley kill you?

Ban peanuts, they are pretty dangerous and kill lots of people.

[IamNotDavid]

You could well be right, but nobody is marched at gun point and told to race or else, it's a personal choice. If they get killed then it's because of a decision they made.

If they want to die that's their problem. But they also want to pretend that it's good for aviation, and that is just absurd. People see the deaths at motorcycle races and think they're morons. It's very likely they think the same about Reno.


It's less dangerous than farming. More farmers die in the US per year than race pilots.

It's only less dangerous than farming if there are as many Reno pilots as there are farmers. You don't determine risk by the total numbers, you determine risk by the ratio of deaths to participants.

[Madfish]

Seriously, what's with all the static number comparisons. It doesn't matter how many farmers die or people get hit by lightning as their sample size is bigger. You'd have to say how many farmers die per bread or how many people die per lighting strike. It's basic first grader math........

That aside, why can't both sides be a bit more tolerant? It's a fact that reno racing is probably the most dangerous air sport. More dangerous than stunt flying, formation flying and others. Which is ridiculous. You'd also have to wonder why redbull air races are so much safer than reno ones although they are more popular?

So yes, both sides are right. No bans but more safety precautions. I already mentioned a few.
- Autopilots in case of pilot failure and race track area violations
- Parachutes as safety measures (for the planes!)
- Skidding protection for viewers to prevent the plane from slipping into the crowd
- More distance between spectators and the racers
- Better course layouts, coupled with mentioned above security measures this could seriously help
- Recorders for plane functions to make aft-crash diagnosis easier


So although his desire for a ban is a little premature I also question if reno racing has things under control. I also wonder if people in this thread are overlooking a few basics just to validate their point.
Just because something is risky it doesn't mean you should not try to minimize the risks involved!

Both sides are correct in my opinion.

[IamNotDavid]

You'd also have to wonder why redbull air races are so much safer than reno ones although they are more popular?


There are several reasons why Red Bull races are safer.

1. Red Bull has terminated the series.
2. only 1 aircraft on the course at a time
3. aircraft are slower
4. aircraft are more reliable

Good luck making the death races safer! I don't see it happening.

[winny]

If they want to die that's their problem. But they also want to pretend that it's good for aviation, and that is just absurd. People see the deaths at motorcycle races and think they're morons. It's very likely they think the same about Reno.

To be honest I don't like what they do at Reno. It's like muscle cars but with wings. It's neither good or bad for aviation, it's just guys racing planes. (I've never really seen the appeal of air races)

But it's what the pilots want to do. Nobody was forced to attend or to participate.



It's only less dangerous than farming if there are as many Reno pilots as there are farmers. You don't determine risk by the total numbers, you determine risk by the ratio of deaths to participants.

Fair point, I was using deaths per year and shouldn't of said that farming was more dangerous. Farming just kills more people.

I stand by the point that legislating for a freak accident results in freak legislation though.

I don't understand where you're coming from though. Is it the deaths of the pilots that makes you want it stopped, or spectators, or the aircraft?
Because out of the 3 the only one who didn't consent to being there was the plane. You can't just ban racing because it's dangerous, because the danger is part of the appeal to participants and spectators alike.

It was just very very unlucky. Unlucky that it happened at the exact point that it did, if it had happened on any other part of the course then we'd just be talking about another P-51 crash and another dead racer.

[IamNotDavid]

To be honest I don't like what they do at Reno. It's like muscle cars but with wings. It's neither good or bad for aviation, it's just guys racing planes. (I've never really seen the appeal of air races)


No, video of aircraft crashing into the ground is definitely bad. There is no way to paint a smiley face on that pig.


I stand by the point that legislating for a freak accident results in freak legislation though.


You can stand by it all you want, but you're still wrong. 1/47 is not a "freak" event.

[Sammi79]

The fact that it has only happened once does not necessarily make it freakish. The sample size (47) isn't very big. I out of 47 really isn't that freakish, especially when you consider how often they crash.

since 47 = events & years, once in 47 years is roughly 2% chance per year - thats pretty unlikely, if not freakish.

And is isn't close to an F1 season at all. Each F1 event also has qualifying and practice. A Reno event is similar to a single F1 event, not an entire season. Comparing a single Reno event to an entire season of F1 is absurd.

like i said David, however you refuse to try to counter this argument, 1 event in F1 is equal to roughly 6 hrs racing including practice and qualifying. 1 season in F1 is between 10-20 events (19 atm but this is at the high end if you look at history)

1 event at Reno = several days (for arguments sake lets say 4?) at least 6 hrs per day qualifying = minumum 24 hrs qualifying, which is what you'd get in a season in F1 if you had 12 races in a particular year

After the days qualifying a working week of races (5 days x 6hrs per day) = minumum 30 hrs racing which is equal to a 15 race season in F1.

However you look at it, you cannot say one event at Reno is equatable to one event in F1, but then I fully expect you to repeat '2 deaths per 5 events' as if every time someone got in a plane to race 2/5 times they would die as that's all you have come up with so far. Why not try to argue my point seeing as you wanted to play statistics? I have shown fairly that actually the racing at Reno to be comparably dangerous to F1 and others have added that some motorsports are certainly more dangerous (Isle of Mann TT)

Reno racers don't have the right to put people in danger just because they want an audience. Nor do I care what they think about being shut down.

:grin: yes well sorry David I didn't know they forced you to go and watch at gunpoint you have my sympathies. Read what you just wrote! People put themselves knowingly in danger of their own free will because they have accepted the risks and want to watch the racing, is that clear enough for you?

Here's a quote from one of the families of the victims : 'They would have wanted the races to continue...'

[IamNotDavid]

since 47 = events & years, once in 47 years is roughly 2% chance per year - thats pretty unlikely, if not freakish.


It isn't 2% per year, it's 2% over a span of about 4 days.


like i said David, however you refuse to try to counter this argument, 1 event in F1 is equal to roughly 6 hrs racing including practice and qualifying. 1 season in F1 is between 10-20 events (19 atm but this is at the high end if you look at history)

1 event at Reno = several days (for arguments sake lets say 4?) at least 6 hrs per day qualifying = minumum 24 hrs qualifying, which is what you'd get in a season in F1 if you had 12 races in a particular year

Sorry, but that is complete BS. They're not spending 6 hours per day racing at Reno. The crash was in the middle of a 6 lap race. The unlimited course is 8.4 miles. At 400mph the race should last 7.6 minutes. 6 hours of racing per day would be 47 races per day. I'm going to need more than your word that they're running 47 races each day at Reno.

Until then we're going to consider a Reno event to be roughly equivalent to an F1 event.


Here's a quote from one of the families of the victims : 'They would have wanted the races to continue...'

No one is accusing them of being smart.

[IamNotDavid]

Read what you just wrote! People put themselves knowingly in danger of their own free will because they have accepted the risks and want to watch the racing, is that clear enough for you?


The people who put themselves in danger at Reno have no idea what sort of risk they are taking. That has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt on this very thread.

[bongodriver]

It isn't 2% per year, it's 2% over a span of about 4 days.

Which happen once a year....so it's 2% a year

No one is accusing them of being smart.

Oh the irony...

[IamNotDavid]

Which happen once a year....so it's 2% a year



No, it's not per year. They're not at an air race for the other 361 days of the year, so that time is irrelevant. It's 2% over 4 days.

[IamNotDavid]

Oh the irony...

Bongo, I have a BA in mathematical sciences. What are your qualifications for discussing statistical analysis?

[winny]

No, video of aircraft crashing into the ground is definitely bad. There is no way to paint a smiley face on that pig.

That happens a quite lot. Commercial, private, Military - Planes crash.



You can stand by it all you want, but you're still wrong. 1/47 is not a "freak" event.

It is a freak accident, it's never happened before, 1/47 is misleading, it's too small a number. You could theoretically have 100 more Reno air races and it never happen again.

You really want to know how much of a freak then work it out. Assuming it was caused by the trim tab failing.
You'll need,
the probability of the same failiure happening again.
the probability of it happening at the same point in the race, (so you'll need to know what percentage of the race is run directly in front of the crowd)
the probability of the same result from the failiure (we already know that this happened to P-51 'voodoo chile' and the result was he went up to 9,000 feet, not into the crowd)
Then add all these together. That's the probability of it happening again.
It's an enormous number.
So again, how is it not a freak accident? None of the other deaths were caused by the same set of circumstances. You're assuming all deaths have the same cause, they don't.

The deaths are the result not the cause, you can't measure the result and then use it as an argument for cause.

[ATAG_Doc]

Boy talk about a huge waste of money. I hope at least you attended a discount school. What did that math degree earn you vs. cost? Whats your degrees analysis say about that?

Sent from my SCH-R910 using Tapatalk

[Sammi79]

It isn't 2% per year, it's 2% over a span of about 4 days.

2% over a span of 4 days qualifying + 5 days heat racing per year

Sorry, but that is complete BS. They're not spending 6 hours per day racing at Reno. The crash was in the middle of a 6 lap race. The unlimited course is 8.4 miles. At 400mph the race should last 7.6 minutes. 6 hours of racing per day would be 47 races per day. I'm going to need more than your word that they're running 47 races each day at Reno.

Until then we're going to consider a Reno event to be roughly equivalent to an F1 event.

We? you mean you I guess? (and only you so far) So because you are unwilling to look at the actual numbers you go with a grotesquely simplified set that supports only your argument, and is no less BS than mine. I freely admit that using numbers in this way is at the least misleading and at the worst just plain false, that's been my point all along. How is looking at it your way more correct than mine?

So to continue to give you examples - lets factor in all the time starting up, time taking off, time landing, and the fact it is heats (many short races) + all the extra aerobatics and displays that go on in between for varying amounts of time, again landing/ taking off I could be wrong but to me it seems plausible that there are planes zipping around above people for at 4-6 hrs per day. We can keep going forever with the imaginary numbers David.

No one is accusing them of being smart.

Again with the insults - towards the victims no less.
How do these people harm you in any way, shape or form? what is the cause of your malice about this?

[Sammi79]

The people who put themselves in danger at Reno have no idea what sort of risk they are taking. That has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt on this very thread.

So who has commented in this thread who has been to Reno and how have they shown you beyond reasonable doubt that they don't understand the risks?

[Helrza]

all ill say is, if i had a beautiful mustang hurtling down towards me, sure id be scared about dying for a few whiole seconds... But i can bet you there'd be a massive hallilujah playing in the background somewhere... What an honour :P id die a happy man :)

[Sammi79]

Bongo, I have a BA in mathematical sciences. What are your qualifications for discussing statistical analysis?

This I find hard to believe since all you, me and anyone else has done on this thread is multiply numbers to get bigger numbers.

[IamNotDavid]

That happens a quite lot. Commercial, private, Military - Planes crash.


They don't crash as frequently as Reno planes, or for such a pointless reason.


It is a freak accident, it's never happened before, 1/47 is misleading, it's too small a number. You could theoretically have 100 more Reno air races and it never happen again.


But it didn't happen 100 times, it only happened 47 times, so that's the number we're going to use. 1/47 is not freakish in any way, nor is it misleading. It's reality.



You're assuming all deaths have the same cause, they don't.

The deaths are the result not the cause, you can't measure the result and then use it as an argument for cause.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm just counting the dead, and the cause is very well known. It's Reno.

[bongodriver]

Bongo, I have a BA in mathematical sciences. What are your qualifications for discussing statistical analysis?

Ok....but you relied on me to work out the stats you keep waving around ;)

[Sammi79]

all ill say is, if i had a beautiful mustang hurtling down towards me, sure id be scared about dying for a few whiole seconds... But i can bet you there'd be a massive hallilujah playing in the background somewhere... What an honour :P id die a happy man :)

Yeah that ^ :grin:

[IamNotDavid]

This I find hard to believe since all you, me and anyone else has done on this thread is multiply numbers to get bigger numbers.

I know. And yet most of the pro-Reno people still aren't getting it.

[IamNotDavid]

Ok....but you relied on me to work out the stats you keep waving around ;)

No, I relied on you to count the dead bodies. That doesn't require a lot of analysis skills.

[Sammi79]

I know. And yet most of the pro-Reno people still aren't getting it.

thats because multiplying numbers to get bigger numbers doesn't mean anything other than we all learned multiplication in primary school.

[IamNotDavid]

So who has commented in this thread who has been to Reno and how have they shown you beyond reasonable doubt that they don't understand the risks?

I'm talking about the people in here who would like to go to Reno. I doubt that actually going to Reno makes you any better at statistical analysis (not counting this year's graduating class).

[IamNotDavid]

thats because multiplying numbers to get bigger numbers doesn't mean anything other than we all learned multiplication in primary school.

Yes, it does mean something. That's why we learned how to multiply numbers.

[bongodriver]

I'm talking about the people in here who would like to go to Reno. I doubt that actually going to Reno makes you any better at statistical analysis (not counting this year's graduating class).

You sound like you really care for these people....no wonder you dont wan't them to die

[bongodriver]

Yes, it does mean something. That's why we learned how to multiply numbers.

Most of us use it for practical purpouses....not just to make random numbers bigger for a hobby.

[IamNotDavid]

Boy talk about a huge waste of money. I hope at least you attended a discount school. What did that math degree earn you vs. cost? Whats your degrees analysis say about that?


I actually went to one of the better schools. The Johns Hopkins University. My degree analysis says that I'll be retired at 50. It was money well spent.

[IamNotDavid]

Most of us use it for practical purpouses....not just to make random numbers bigger for a hobby.

They're only random if you don't understand statistical analysis.

[Sammi79]

I'm talking about the people in here who would like to go to Reno. I doubt that actually going to Reno makes you any better at statistical analysis (not counting this year's graduating class).

well in that case say what you mean, because you said 'people who put themselves in danger at Reno' and again if you mean peple like me what have I demonstrated I don't understand and how?

[IamNotDavid]

You sound like you really care for these people....no wonder you dont wan't them to die

I don't care about them. I don't know any of them. If I did know one of them, I'd feel bad for his/her family. But that does not change the fact that they died doing something really stupid.

[bongodriver]

I don't care about them. I don't know any of them. If I did know one of them, I'd feel bad for his/her family. But that does not change the fact that they died doing something really stupid.

They were having a lovely day out in the sunshine watching a sport they were obviously interested in....not sitting at the computer trolling on a forum....now that 'is' stupid.

[IamNotDavid]

They were having a lovely day out in the sunshine watching a sport they were obviously interested in....

Without a clue of the danger that they were in.

[IamNotDavid]

if you mean peple like me what have I demonstrated I don't understand and how?

Because you say stupid things like "multiplying numbers doesn't mean anything".

[Sammi79]

Because you say stupid things like "multiplying numbers doesn't mean anything".

question was 'what' not 'why' but then you have been evading the majority of my questions.

[IamNotDavid]

question was 'what' not 'why' but then you have been evading the majority of my questions.

You have demonstrated that you don't know how dangerous air racing is. You say you understand, but when I put the Reno numbers in context you make it clear that you really don't understand.

[Crumpp]

Yeah that ^ :grin:

8)

Great minds think alike....

[IamNotDavid]

all ill say is, if i had a beautiful mustang hurtling down towards me, sure id be scared about dying for a few whiole seconds... But i can bet you there'd be a massive hallilujah playing in the background somewhere... What an honour :P id die a happy man :)

I've seen tape of the crash from several angles. There was lots of screaming, but not a single hallelujah, and no one sounded happy.

[Robotic Pope]

Give it a rest guys. Everything to be said has already been said.

[winny]

They don't crash as frequently as Reno planes, or for such a pointless reason.

Pointless to you. Not to them, or they wouldn't have been there? Get it?
If it was pointless to them then they wouldn't be there, what would be the point? The point for them is to win.



But it didn't happen 100 times, it only happened 47 times, so that's the number we're going to use. 1/47 is not freakish in any way, nor is it misleading. It's reality.

Now you're just deflecting, you seem to have a grasp of numbers, so I'll ask again, what's the probability of this happening again? I'll give you a clue, it's not 1 in 47. Not even close.

You're clinging on to 1 in 47, it's irrelevant, it could be 1 in a million and it just happened to happen on the 47th time.
Should we ban all transatlantic passenger shipping, based on the fact that the Titanic sank on her maiden voyage? Hundreds of deaths for 1 event..


Why haven't we seen these P-51's falling out of the sky every 47th flight? According to you there's a 1 in 47 chance of this happening, it's wrong. You are manipulating the numbers. How many modified P-51's have crashed because of the same (non freak) problem?



I'm not assuming anything, I'm just counting the dead, and the cause is very well known. It's Reno.

When I 'just counted the dead' (ie:deaths per year) you said I shouldn't.
The cause was an accident.

Also your assumption that nobody knew that there was a posibility of danger being there is nonsense. It's a niche 'sport' and the people who were there knew what they were watching. To think otherwise is naive

[Sammi79]

You have demonstrated that you don't know how dangerous air racing is. You say you understand, but when I put the Reno numbers in context you make it clear that you really don't understand.

And when I put them in context you deny my interpretation although by taking more data into account it is more precise than yours... and you say you are a statistician?

I understand that if I go to an air racing (substitute any extreme sport here) event I may be injured or killed, people near me may be injured or killed. If I decide to accept the risks, which are slight, this does not mean I do not understand them.

You continue to insult everyone involved with the Reno races and people like me who would not mind going once to see it, pilots, crews, and spectators and victims alike. What did any of these people do to make you want to deny them their passion? Thankfully no one gave you the power.

I will stop feeding the troll now.

[IamNotDavid]

Now you're just deflecting, you seem to have a grasp of numbers, so I'll ask again, what's the probability of this happening again? I'll give you a clue, it's not 1 in 47. Not even close.


Since 1 in 47 is the example we have seen, that's the example we're going to use. Trying to pretend it wasn't 1 in 47 is deflecting (and moronic).


You're clinging on to 1 in 47, it's irrelevant, it could be 1 in a million and it just happened to happen on the 47th time.


It could be 1 in 1 billion, but it wasn't. It was 1 in 47. We can only go by the stats available, not by the ones you pull out of your butt.


Should we ban all transatlantic passenger shipping, based on the fact that the Titanic sank on her maiden voyage? Hundreds of deaths for 1 event..


No, but we can make sure there are enough life boats for everyone on board. If that isn't possible, then we find a different way to do things.


Why haven't we seen these P-51's falling out of the sky every 47th flight? According to you there's a 1 in 47 chance of this happening, it's wrong. You are manipulating the numbers. How many modified P-51's have crashed because of the same (non freak) problem?

I didn't say anything about 51s falling out of the sky every 47th flight. I have no idea where you got that.


Also your assumption that nobody knew that there was a posibility of danger being there is nonsense. It's a niche 'sport' and the people who were there knew what they were watching. To think otherwise is naive

The assumption is based on what has been posted in here by pro-Reno people. I'm very confident that it is accurate.

[IamNotDavid]

And when I put them in context you deny my interpretation although by taking more data into account it is more precise than yours... and you say you are a statistician?


Let me know when you find a source that says there are 46 races at Reno every day. Until then you're not using more precise data than mine, you're pulling data out of your butt.

[Madfish]

When will this debate find a middle ground? Both standpoints are correct.

Reno races NEED more safety measures, otherwise the series needs to lay out different strategic goals unless it's safe enough for both pilots AND spectators.

The "pro" fraction that always repeats the same childish insults and arguments is a bit annoying though. The spectators knew the risk? Maybe. But did they go there to die? No. All you hear on the videos is "oh my god" and other stuff - not "cool, a plane just crashed and killed a few people."
What you say there is without any respect for the pilots and people.

Also, regarding the "we knew the risk" thing. Yeah, knowing risks is all fine but if the risks are too big then it's called a suicide attempt or an attempted murder. Because, seriously, an air show can't just say: hey, we know the chances of an accident are very high so just get used to eventually ending up dead. That's completely rubbish.

If the reno races association doesn't learn from this then this is seriously BAD. However, just banning the races without evaluating what went wrong and how to avoid it is also bad.


Just agree that you BOTH have a point. Because you do.

Seriously, what's with all the static number comparisons. It doesn't matter how many farmers die or people get hit by lightning as their sample size is bigger. You'd have to say how many farmers die per bread or how many people die per lighting strike. It's basic first grader math........

That aside, why can't both sides be a bit more tolerant? It's a fact that reno racing is probably the most dangerous air sport. More dangerous than stunt flying, formation flying and others. Which is ridiculous. You'd also have to wonder why redbull air races are so much safer than reno ones although they are more popular?

So yes, both sides are right. No bans but more safety precautions. I already mentioned a few.
- Autopilots in case of pilot failure and race track area violations
- Parachutes as safety measures (for the planes!)
- Skidding protection for viewers to prevent the plane from slipping into the crowd
- More distance between spectators and the racers
- Better course layouts, coupled with mentioned above security measures this could seriously help
- Recorders for plane functions to make aft-crash diagnosis easier


So although his desire for a ban is a little premature I also question if reno racing has things under control. I also wonder if people in this thread are overlooking a few basics just to validate their point.
Just because something is risky it doesn't mean you should not try to minimize the risks involved!

Both sides are correct in my opinion.

Seriously :!:

[IamNotDavid]

When will this debate find a middle ground? Both standpoints are correct.

Reno races NEED more safety measures, otherwise the series needs to lay out different strategic goals unless it's safe enough for both pilots AND spectators.


There are 3 problems finding middle ground.

1. The Reno people think the event is safe enough.
2. The anti-Reno people believe there is no way to make it safer and maintain anything close to the current format.
3. The Reno people like the current format and think the event is safe enough.

BTW, the Red Bull people stopped that race for safety reasons before there was a single fatality, and Red Bull racing appeared to be a lot safer than Reno. That is the middle ground. They should stop the race.

[Madfish]

You know, I'm trying to defend you here and also trying to defend the victims which surely DIDN'T want this to happen. But you're making it very hard... even for me. Why?

1) stopping the race isn't a middle ground
2) there are ALWAYS ways to improve
3) red bull didn't stop the series - they paused it in 2011 to make room for technological improvements, eventually even some of which I mentioned
4) there is no reno and anti-reno people. It's only you and those other "pro" faction freaks are so crazy about this. The rest of us most definately want to keep air sport alive but also make sure it's safe I believe.

So what's so hard to agree on about? I believe what Red Bull did was is the right thing to do. And they WILL re-open the series make no mistake about that.
Reno should do the same for sure. But killing the series would just be wrong.

[TomcatViP]

Yeah and let's stop all the running races as it claims to many ankles per seconds !

[IamNotDavid]

And they WILL re-open the series make no mistake about that.

They're flying high performance aircraft close to the ground. There is simply no way to make that safe. If they restart it's only because they decided to toss the dice.

[Sammi79]

Let me know when you find a source that says there are 46 races at Reno every day. Until then you're not using more precise data than mine, you're pulling data out of your butt.
BINGO! which is exactly what you do every time you say there would be 400 deaths per year in F1 if the death rate was the same, or any of your other arbitrary multiplications. At least my method takes into account the existence of extra data which would be necessary to make meaningful comparisons to other dangerous activities. How about you let me know when you find a source that states that in 7-10 days at Reno they have only a few hours of racing (therefore being comparable to 1 race in F1) until then, well, like you said...

Pylon racing is dangerous due to the speed and low altitude, but neither of these things can be compromised without destroying the event, like has happened in F1. Things could be made safer but only to a point. You could move the spectator stands a mile back, but then, at 500mph an aircraft will cover that distance in under 15 seconds. In F1 after several particularly bad years regarding fatal accidents, the drivers got together to force the teams and tracks to provide for their safety, started boycotting races deemed too dangerous etc. Until the pilots who race at Reno start feeling seriously worried for their own safety and therefore stop racing out of a healthy desire to remain alive, no-one has any right to tell them to stop what they do because it is too dangerous - they know the dangers and they accept it, they are not demanding that anyone else subject themselves to it. The same goes for the spectators. Nobody in their right mind wants to see people hurt or killed for love of their sport, and maybe as a result of this some people will decide not to attend in the future for safety reasons. That is their choice and I fully support them. But if they still want to watch? that is their choice and I support them in that too, to want to deny them is some sort of authoritarian ego thing I find particularly repulsive. Part of what is wrong with our culture today. Perhaps you were bullied at school and now you'd like to get your own back?

@Madfish - The Red Bull races are a very sanitized form of air racing with as many safety controls as you can think of, like F1 where safety has been taken to the extreme that it has utterly destroyed the sport. There must be as you say some middle ground, but this comes with a price, and folks like David need to remember that absolutely nothing can be made perfectly safe, least of all extreme motor sports. Anyway in terms of safety, how about - armored spectator stands - ejector seats and parachutes as standard?

P.S. I know I said I'd stop, but since David is so vehement I am again compelled to defend my position.

[Sammi79]

The "pro" fraction that always repeats the same childish insults and arguments is a bit annoying though. The spectators knew the risk? Maybe. But did they go there to die? No. All you hear on the videos is "oh my god" and other stuff - not "cool, a plane just crashed and killed a few people."
What you say there is without any respect for the pilots and people.

Also, regarding the "we knew the risk" thing. Yeah, knowing risks is all fine but if the risks are too big then it's called a suicide attempt or an attempted murder. Because, seriously, an air show can't just say: hey, we know the chances of an accident are very high so just get used to eventually ending up dead. That's completely rubbish.

Firstly, when and where did I (being "pro" as you put it) fail to respect or ever insult the pilots or spectators? I think you'll find its the "con" group that is doing that by implying that they are stupid/mindless/unable to understand danger. I might add that you have insulted me twice now with your statements against my childish point view, whereas I have tried to remain as objective as possible whilst being bombarded by the over zealous 'People should be forced to remain safe for their own good' camp. Nothing can be made perfectly safe. Mundane activities can nearly be made almost perfectly safe but extreme sports will always carry a significant risk. Make it safer by all means but prepare for the fact that at some point in the future, an accident will happen and more people will be hurt/killed no matter what controls you put on it, apart from total ban. There is an argument for increasing safety measures at Reno. There is an argument to make sure that attendees be made fully aware of the possibly lethal outcomes. But to cry out 'ban! ban! ban!' without any real knowledge of the sport smacks of being jealous that some folks are a bit less risk averse and are able to have fun that you'll never be able to have yourself. Ye GADS! some people jump off mountains in a flying squirrel suit. Others smoke cigarettes at 60 a day. We all gotta go sometime, somehow.

Secondly, If I am 'pro' anything it is not Reno air racing or any particular activity, I am pro choice, pro freedom, and pro accepting responsibility for my own actions and decisions and not leaving it up to anyone else to tell me I can't/shouldn't, especially when it affects them not at all. In my view the chances of an accident at Reno involving spectators are not that high - 1 in 48 (+- 2%) though I can understand that people might find this too high and I am not opposed to trying to reduce this chance, but at the present moment, if you can't stand the heat...

[Helrza]

I've seen tape of the crash from several angles. There was lots of screaming, but not a single hallelujah, and no one sounded happy.

Sorry david, but that was actually an insight on how i would feel if i was in the firing line. Wasnt an implication that that is what happened to these ppl. But i can bet on your life in their obituaries/ eulogy, some would have had something metioned in it "He/she died doin what they loved" or some blah blah like that.

But ive noticed one thing about that statement and anothers of yours... your saying it should be stopped because of this bad "happening"..... but since youve watched it across several angle... and im assuming youve watched them several times, i get the feeling you might have actually enjoyed watching it happen... over, and over... and over again. Which is human nature i think. a part of us all enjoy watching things like this lol.

But yes, it is tragic, and inevitably, it was bound to happen one day, might not have been this year, maybe not in the next decade, the race could be into its 100th year and it could have happened. But really, all parties know the risks involved going to a spectacle like this, or any others.

so why should it be stopped?

If each event/ thing was to be stopped becuase of a few fatalities there would be no motor racing, no bike racing, no flights to other countries, no taking a cruise ship to other countries, no driving you car down the street for groceries.. and etc etc etc. Would be a very boring world i must say.

These days i get the feeling that the world has gone way too soft. In the old days it would have been "thats horrible", "OMG", "Terrible, terrible, terrible.... Soooo ill cya next week for the next race?".



Back to the topic at hand (well the interesting part with ppl actually having a constructive DISCUSSION), i noticed an earlier post someone saying about if the pilot had blacked out, you woulda seen him slumped over the controls. My thoughts about this would be you wouldnt see him at all, a massive amount of force such as 10G would have pushed him back and down into his seat?

[IamNotDavid]

BINGO! which is exactly what you do every time you say there would be 400 deaths per year in F1 if the death rate was the same, or any of your other arbitrary multiplications. At least my method takes into account the existence of extra data which would be necessary to make meaningful comparisons to other dangerous activities. How about you let me know when you find a source that states that in 7-10 days at Reno they have only a few hours of racing (therefore being comparable to 1 race in F1) until then, well, like you said...

You didn't make use of additional data, you made $@!^ up. My comparison is perfectly valid. One F1 event is approximately equivalent to 1 Reno event. The timespan is roughly the same. You certainly have not demonstrated otherwise.


Pylon racing is dangerous due to the speed and low altitude, but neither of these things can be compromised without destroying the event, like has happened in F1.

Then they should not be doing it.

That is their choice and I fully support them. But if they still want to watch? that is their choice and I support them in that too, to want to deny them is some sort of authoritarian ego thing I find particularly repulsive. Part of what is wrong with our culture today. Perhaps you were bullied at school and now you'd like to get your own back?

People don't get to act recklessly just because they want to. I suspect the good folks at Reno are going to be reminded of that when they see their insurance rates next year.

It's not like there is a small problem here. The death rate at Reno is appalling.

[IamNotDavid]

Sorry david, but that was actually an insight on how i would feel if i was in the firing line. Wasnt an implication that that is what happened to these ppl. But i can bet on your life in their obituaries/ eulogy, some would have had something metioned in it "He/she died doin what they loved" or some blah blah like that.

But ive noticed one thing about that statement and anothers of yours... your saying it should be stopped because of this bad "happening"..... but since youve watched it across several angle... and im assuming youve watched them several times, i get the feeling you might have actually enjoyed watching it happen... over, and over... and over again. Which is human nature i think. a part of us all enjoy watching things like this lol.


I watched each tape once because I wanted to see what happened. Several years ago a good friend of mine was killed in an air show crash. His young child and wife were watching at the time. I also watched the tape of that once. Do you think I enjoyed it?


But yes, it is tragic, and inevitably, it was bound to happen one day, might not have been this year, maybe not in the next decade, the race could be into its 100th year and it could have happened. But really, all parties know the risks involved going to a spectacle like this, or any others.


Actually, the parties clearly don't know the risks involved. But they're going to find out when the next insurance bill shows up.


so why should it be stopped?

Because it's recklessly dangerous.


If each event/ thing was to be stopped becuase of a few fatalities there would be no motor racing, no bike racing, no flights to other countries, no taking a cruise ship to other countries, no driving you car down the street for groceries.. and etc etc etc. Would be a very boring world i must say.

This isn't "a few fatalities", this is 2 dead for every 5 events. That is appalling.


These days i get the feeling that the world has gone way too soft. In the old days it would have been "thats horrible", "OMG", "Terrible, terrible, terrible.... Soooo ill cya next week for the next race?".

Yes, that's what they used to do in auto racing, until they realized that it was moronic and they stopped the carnage.

[IamNotDavid]

if you can't stand the heat...

...you are forced to pay a massive insurance bill if you want to continue the carnage.

[JG52Krupi]

When Reno 2012 starts I will revive this thread to mock you....

In the mean time...

http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/STFU_NOOB.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GmAG-JlHT4M/TT4Uzx0B-MI/AAAAAAAABso/JaIbWQmmdwg/s1600/stfu%255B1%255D.jpg

http://troll.me/images/trololo/danny-stfu.jpg

Choose one.

[bongodriver]

...you are forced to pay a massive insurance bill if you want to continue the carnage.

Lucky they are quite wealthy then eh?.....yeah blows your need for an audience out the window, because no public liability would be an advantage.

[mustang137]

Then they should not be doing it.

People don't get to act recklessly just because they want to. I suspect the good folks at Reno are going to be reminded of that when they see their insurance rates next year.

It's not like there is a small problem here. The death rate at Reno is appalling.

Anyone got a face palm pic!!

[AWL_Spinner]

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o63/Harry_Flashman/1287922481918.gif

[IamNotDavid]

Lucky they are quite wealthy then eh?.....yeah blows your need for an audience out the window, because no public liability would be an advantage.

They currently charge the audience to cover parking costs and insurance. Either the amount they charge is going to have to increase, or the aircraft owners are going to have to help cover those costs. There's a limit to what the insurance companies can do to stop this.

[IamNotDavid]

When Reno 2012 starts I will revive this thread to mock you....


Mock me for what?

[bongodriver]

They currently charge the audience to cover parking costs and insurance. Either the amount they charge is going to have to increase, or the aircraft owners are going to have to help cover those costs. There's a limit to what the insurance companies can do to stop this.

They charge the public for the costs incurred for having the public.....no public = no costs.......then everybody can do the thing they love....exept the public who 'want' to be there.

[IamNotDavid]

They charge the public for the costs incurred for having the public.....no public = no costs.......then everybody can do the thing they love....exept the public who 'want' to be there.

So? I'm fine with that, and we already discussed it. Only the FAA can stop that.

[ATAG_Doc]

I actually went to one of the better schools. The Johns Hopkins University. My degree analysis says that I'll be retired at 50. It was money well spent.

Well doctor we're not impressed. You can't imagine the level of humor I find in your futile effort to impress people. There are many people here that are already retired that are not 50 yet - myself included.

John Hopkins in their own self-interest wont tell you that you'll never get rich working for somebody - I wont charge you for that nugget of wisdom - I simply like helping people who want it for free. They're just another business like so many others.

You leave school with a huge bill to pay and a piece of paper with your name on it that can could also be used for toilet paper in a pinch. Speaking of which....I'll be right back.

[bongodriver]

Only the FAA can stop that.

when the public are not involved the FAA have little interest.

[IamNotDavid]

Well doctor we're not impressed. You can't imagine the level of humor I find in your futile effort to impress people.


I'm not trying to impress anyone. I've been repeatedly called stupid for my analysis of the Reno numbers. I'm just wondering about their qualifications, so I posted mine.

[IamNotDavid]

when the public are not involved the FAA have little interest.

The FAA will probably investigate the crashes. Or do aircraft falling from the sky not involve the public?

[Sammi79]

You didn't make use of additional data, you made $@!^ up. My comparison is perfectly valid. One F1 event is approximately equivalent to 1 Reno event. The timespan is roughly the same. You certainly have not demonstrated otherwise.

No, it isn't. One race in F1 including free practice and qualifying totals less than a few hours, Reno which is at least a week long event, has displays as well as racing, however you look at, it totals a lot more than that, so by insisting that the fact it happens only once a year makes no difference and we should measure the time in events, I say why not measure it in days or even hours, if its the time per year that is so important, and we come to different conclusions. My point is, the issue is not as cut and defined as you would have it, clear comparisons cannot be made, and some activities are proven to be more dangerous even than Reno. Why do any of these activities carry on? It is not that people are stupid or that they don't understand the risk. It is something somewhat harder to define.

Reckless, maybe. Reckless is normally associated with youth but in many of these sports you'll notice the competitors are a lot older, due to the fact it takes a considerable amount of experience as well as skill to be able to pass the entrance requirements, let alone qualify or be competitive. Especially so in the case of aircraft racing it would seem. If you truly were reckless there is almost no way you could have survived to take part. No matter though, who they are or how skilled, experienced, young or old, people sometimes get things wrong, whilst doing a great many different things. Sometimes a machine part fails leading to a sequence of events that cannot be averted from that moment forward. Sometimes a sequence of small events over an extended period of time conspire to make a dangerous situation lethal.

People like to go fast is the most obvious simplification of why these dangerous activities continue. People also like to admire the machines that help them achieve it, from inside and out. People like to compete with each other to see, who is the fastest? Whose machine is best, practically, aesthetically, audibly? Is it really important? Maybe not. But the interested mind poses these questions automatically and seeks an answer. Why do people climb Everest? for every 15 that summit 1 dies. People want to push the boundaries and see how far, how fast, and maybe go that little bit further. Its an evolutionary necessity that cannot be permanently subdued.

I realise that my position might seem to imply that I am in some way unfeeling or uncaring about the recent accident, I assure you that I am not. Every single death is a tragedy, from which I hope people will recover with as much haste and ease as is possible. I am sure you are correct in your assessment of the insurance companies direction, David. That is their business after all. I have said all I can say on the matter.

[Sternjaeger II]

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o63/Harry_Flashman/1287922481918.gif

LULz love this, what's it from? :mrgreen:

aaawwww guys, is this still going on? The troll must be super-fat by now. You should come and see us also in the "was the battle of britain the first defeat of the Luftwaffe" room though, we're having tea an biscuits there ;)

[IamNotDavid]

No, it isn't. One race in F1 including free practice and qualifying totals less than a few hours, Reno which is at least a week long event, has displays as well as racing, however you look at, it totals a lot more than that, so by insisting that the fact it happens only once a year makes no difference and we should measure the time in events, I say why not measure it in days or even hours, if its the time per year that is so important, and we come to different conclusions. My point is, the issue is not as cut and defined as you would have it, clear comparisons cannot be made, and some activities are proven to be more dangerous even than Reno. Why do any of these activities carry on? It is not that people are stupid or that they don't understand the risk. It is something somewhat harder to define.


If you think the time spent racing/qualifying/practicing at Reno is significantly different from an F1 race, post something to support it. So far all you've got is BS.


Reckless, maybe. Reckless is normally associated with youth but in many of these sports you'll notice the competitors are a lot older, due to the fact it takes a considerable amount of experience as well as skill to be able to pass the entrance requirements, let alone qualify or be competitive. Especially so in the case of aircraft racing it would seem. If you truly were reckless there is almost no way you could have survived to take part.


Lots of them don't survive. That's the problem. The only reason the "sport" can continue is because they only race 1 week a year.

[bongodriver]

The FAA will probably investigate the crashes. Or do aircraft falling from the sky not involve the public?

They dont if the public are not there, reno races happen at reno at a dedicated site.....not randomly over the whole US.

[IamNotDavid]

They dont if the public are not there, reno races happen at reno at a dedicated site.....not randomly over the whole US.

Trucking those aircraft to Reno would probably be a pain in the butt.

[bongodriver]

Trucking those aircraft to Reno would probably be a pain in the butt.

When they ferry to the races they are not racing....remember you said it was racing that was dangerous.....

[Gerbil Maximus]

Guys seriously, I've watched this freak troll on now for over six months in various guises, nothing is below his belt, even a thread about untimely deaths fuels his bullshit. No respect for families involved or anything he just uses it for yet another argument.
If you really want this pest to keep going on and on indefinately, of which he will i assure you, then crack on. If not dont feed the creep.
David, if your a doctor this world is further up the proverbial creek more than we thought. Glad they have better security checks in Britain.

[IamNotDavid]

When they ferry to the races they are not racing....remember you said it was racing that was dangerous.....

They're dangerous all the time. They're appallingly dangerous when they're racing. If they go underground and continue to crash regularly (which they will), there is going to be pressure on the FAA to do something about it.

[IamNotDavid]

David, if your a doctor this world is further up the proverbial creek more than we thought. Glad they have better security checks in Britain.

You're security may be better but you're school system sucks, apparently.

[Gerbil Maximus]

Not intrested you childish cock, go try to upset someone else. My school system taught me honour, dignity and respect, something clearly your highly educated brain feels you can do without.

[II./JG1_Wilcke]

The FAA will probably investigate the crashes. Or do aircraft falling from the sky not involve the public?


NTSB does the incident investigation and analysis, with a final report, determining cause and assigning responsiblity. FAA will do the enforcement actions or issue an equipment AD if warranted. Being that this aircraft was a one off, highly modified airframe, in the experimental category it is highly unlikely there is much for the FAA to rule or enforce hardware wise.

The final report will be very relevant for the attorney's in the coming litigation. I noted the N number from the airframe and will follow on the NTSB reporting page as all these reports are public knowledge they are very interesting to read and you learn a lot from them if you are a pilot.

[IamNotDavid]

Not intrested you childish cock, go try to upset someone else. My school system taught me honour, dignity and respect, something clearly your highly educated brain feels you can do without.

Well, at least I don't get off on blood sports. I really have no idea where you got the idea that defending a sport where 2 people die for every 5 events qualifies you as honorable, dignified, or deserving of any respect.

[Helrza]

david, sorry to hear about ur friend, but life goes on.

And yes clearl.y both parties do understand the risk, pilots die every year inevents like this... Air shows and races as such, onlookers have died in past airshows, threw both accidents and pilot stupidity.... But curiously, the still go.

David. I really think that your phobia of all things bad has given you to much time to sit here and individually quote every single persons post. I think its just a little bit lame. I dont care about points of views from suvh people as urself..... Especially since i feel ur goal is to push ur opinion onto others, and make them say "ok, u win".

Please do your self a favour, go outside and enjoy the finer things in life, its too short to be scared of everything.

Mods, could you please lock this thread? This guy is rediculous, i dont see the point of one guy causing arguments within the entire community. Disgusts me.

[IamNotDavid]

David. I really think that your phobia of all things bad has given you to much time to sit here and individually quote every single persons post. I think its just a little bit lame. I dont care about points of views from suvh people as urself..... Especially since i feel ur goal is to push ur opinion onto others, and make them say ok, u win.


It's not a phobia of all things bad. I have already posted stats showing that air racing is appallingly dangerous. There is no other "entertainment" that comes even close.

Nor do I care if you admit that I win. Just stop posting. If the Reno enablers stop posting about how great it is, I'll stop posting about how obscenely dangerous it is.

[ATAG_Doc]

This breaks my heart to see these crash I wish they would ban them. Everyone that goes down is one less left for us to enjoy. And thankfully no one on the ground was hurt but it could have easily been disastrous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aajp-A43glA&

[Gerbil Maximus]

Well, at least I don't get off on blood sports. I really have no idea where you got the idea that defending a sport where 2 people die for every 5 events qualifies you as honorable, dignified, or deserving of any respect.

You are on a forum for a game that is gloryfing aviation warfare and the pilots who flew in it! :confused:
I guessed right then when i thought you dont even see your own countries servicemen as honorable or deserving of respect.

The poor chap who died at reno did so with respect, he was providing aviation lovers with a show, the people whom were unfortunately killed from the crowd, died at a show displaying the aviation they loved. Dont you give them anything less.

Being a doctor i think your time is best spend hounding the US health officials to ban smoking and alcohol consumption as they kill MILLIONS of people worldwide every year. So if you really want to be somebody, and make a difference take up that fight for the good of kind.

[IamNotDavid]

You are on a forum for a game that is gloryfing aviation warfare and the pilots who flew in it! :confused:

Playing war related flight sims is not anything like enjoying a "sport" where there are 2 death for every 5 events. No one dies playing computer games.

I'm not a doctor.

[ATAG_Doc]

Oh darn it. You missed again. What do I got to do to get this though your head? Everyone dies sometime doc.

http://techland.time.com/2011/08/01/gamers-death-linked-to-marathon-session-on-his-xbox/

[IamNotDavid]

Oh darn it. You missed again. What do I got to do to get this though your head? Everyone dies sometime doc.


I'm not the one missing. The fact that everyone dies eventually has nothing to do with this. You don't get to recklessly kill people and then justify it by saying "well, they were gonna die anyways".

[Sternjaeger II]

Gentlemen,it's evident by now that David Hayward is an individual who finds pleasure in creating this kind of flaming,disregarding any form of respect or compassion for the victims of a tragedy that were there just to enjoy an experience and perished in a tragic accident.

David has already been banned once for his behaviour,my humble advice is that we all make an effort and ignore him,if anything for the respect on the people who died,respect that he seems incapable of,giving more impoertance to his troll hobby than the compassion and solidariety to the victims and their families.

Please try and ignore him,cos he won't stop,he obviously has some kind of mental issue..

[IamNotDavid]

When you can't refute the facts, just call them names!

[IamNotDavid]

he obviously has some kind of mental issue..


Coming from someone who sent me PMs whining about not getting any credit from Luthier, this is pretty funny.

[Sammi79]

If you think the time spent racing/qualifying/practicing at Reno is significantly different from an F1 race, post something to support it. So far all you've got is BS.

If you think the time spent racing/qualifying/practicing at Reno is significantly similar to an F1 race, post something to support it. So far, yours smells just like mine.

When you can't refute the facts, just demand sources (without offering any of your own)

:-P Are we having fun yet?

Coming from someone who sent me PMs whining about not getting any credit from Luthier, this is pretty funny.

PMs are private David, why are you telling us this? I guess Sterns quote really hit a nerve. It certainly would go some way to explaining your verbal diarrhea on this thread.

I think maybe, you need simply to calm down sir, your level of fury towards an activity and group of people who don't affect you in any way whatsoever could lead to health problems. Life is too short, as they say.

[Gerbil Maximus]

I'm not the one missing. The fact that everyone dies eventually has nothing to do with this. You don't get to recklessly kill people and then justify it by saying "well, they were gonna die anyways".

So now your calling the guy reckless because the aircraft he was in had some form of structual failure which lead to loss of control and his death along with others.

Go bother people who deliberately destroy lives like the tobacco industry as I've said before.

And go book some therapy because you appear to have some deep rooted sociopathic issues.
It was an accident but in your quoted statement you clearly believe the pilot and show organizers deliberately and recklessly wanted to kill people. You belive it so much you have stood against many people here arguing with pure insensitiviy and lack of moral respect for an accident that you clearly believe is murder.

[IamNotDavid]

If you think the time spent racing/qualifying/practicing at Reno is significantly similar to an F1 race, post something to support it. So far, yours smells just like mine.



I already posted something to support my views. Both events take place over a similar number of days, therefore they involve a similar amount of dangerous activity. The only thing I'm smelling is that you can't show that I'm wrong.

[IamNotDavid]

PMs are private David, why are you telling us this?

Not for me. You shouldn't be whining to me in private if you're going to take shots at me in public.

[IamNotDavid]

So now your calling the guy reckless because the aircraft he was in had some form of structual failure which lead to loss of control and his death along with others.


2 people are killed for every 5 events. The whole thing is reckless. Crashing at Reno isn't unusual. It happens all the time.

[IamNotDavid]

It was an accident but in your quoted statement you clearly believe the pilot and show organizers deliberately and recklessly wanted to kill people.

I never said that they wanted to kill people. They just haven't done what it takes to stop killing people. That is reckless. Unfortunately for them, the only thing that is going to stop the carnage is to end the event.

[Gerbil Maximus]

I find it all very unusual that you speak of the 'Carnage' at reno, when African dictators can slaughter millions, or the president of Iraq can gas thousands, Yet your choice is to basically turn judge and jury about a sporting accident, with nothing to say about world events.

Explain to me and everyone else in this thread why you are insulting the integrity of a dead man under the feint guise of a person who cares about aviation as you previously stated, "I don't care about them. I don't know any of them" and called the relatives of the Deceased "stupid".


I see you use "they" alot but clearly you have no idea who they are so you just talk badly about "them" all.

[SlipBall]

I never said that they wanted to kill people. They just haven't done what it takes to stop killing people. That is reckless. Unfortunately for them, the only thing that is going to stop the carnage is to end the event.



People enjoy excitement and risk, don't judge their needs.:grin:

[Sammi79]

I already posted something to support my views. Both events take place over a similar number of days, therefore they involve a similar amount of dangerous activity. The only thing I'm smelling is that you can't show that I'm wrong.

You have posted nothing in regard to the amount of racing at Reno because you don't know. Admittedly I am not sure, (at least I admit it) but I say Reno goes on for at least 9 days including qualifying and contains several hours of racing and displays each day, F1 for 3 days and is focused on 1 race, on the sunday. I need more than your word that they actually only race for a few minutes a day at Reno, therefore equaling and F1 race. I do not need to show you are wrong, you need to show you are right. I am open minded, David, I accept the possibility you might be right, but I follow F1, I know exactly how much racing they do. Like I said, no more than 6hrs the whole weekend. Again I suggest that over 7-10 days at Reno there is significantly more racing than that, what you are implying is that at Reno they do less than 1 hour a day including practice, qualifying, displays and racing. Unfortunately neither of us have the information needed to conclude whose point of view is closer to the truth, but you continue to attack my analysis even though you cannot truly support your own.

Anyway, the point was, we can all use numbers to bolster our point of view, the problem is that the closer you look, the more numbers you need to find to attempt to accurately compare things regarding something abstract like the 'amount' of danger. I believe people have a right to life. If people are having fun (even to the point of dying) and are not harming me or mine, I may object, but I cannot make them stop, and I shouldn't try. If you think it is really that bad then go and work in health and safety or become a paramedic. At least then you could help. What good is it doing you arguing here?

Peoples PMs to you are sent in confidence, the least you could do is respect that regardless of how you personally feel towards anyone at any given moment. If you are being harassed then take it up with the forum admins. Airing what people say to you in confidence because they just ticked you off is pretty low to be honest.

Regards,
Sam.

[AWL_Spinner]

Airing what people say to you in confidence because they just ticked you off is pretty low to be honest.


I can't see what the troll is writing (thanks ignore!), but on this point it's generally considered verboten on most forums and would earn you a deserved ban on several I frequent.

On-topic, here is the clearest video yet of the events leading up to the accident. No footage of the impact or aftermath, just the mechanical failure and subsequent pull up/roll of Galloping Ghost. This occurs at 07:30 and is repeated several time in slow motion.

http://vimeo.com/29519344

Somewhat dry preliminary NTSB report.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110917X22412&key=1

[TomcatViP]

Thx for the link Spinner. A really good one.

Just to list the evidences on the vid that we can evenualy hve a discussion on rational grds (at least !)

Trailing wheel pop out -> induced bank left -> Pilot action bank right + pitch up -> ctrl ard Roll axis not manageable -> left trim elev separated -> nose down (inverted)...

[ATAG_Doc]

First video that I can actually see the trim tab come lose and fly off. Wonder why wheel came down. Speculation is many things. Blackout from tab falling off to seat coming lose.

[IamNotDavid]

You have posted nothing in regard to the amount of racing at Reno because you don't know..

I don't have to know. There are only so many hours in the day, and both events are held over the same number of days. I already refuted your absurd attempt to claim that there is 6 hours of racing each day at Reno. So, until you can show that there is a lot more racing at Reno than at an F1 event, we're going with my version, because all the available facts support me.

[IamNotDavid]

First video that I can actually see the trim tab come lose and fly off. Wonder why wheel came down. Speculation is many things. Blackout from tab falling off to seat coming lose.

The wheel came down because of the G-forces.

[IamNotDavid]

Peoples PMs to you are sent in confidence, the least you could do is respect that regardless of how you personally feel towards anyone at any given moment. .

He seems to think that I have mental problems. Do you really think it's a good idea to trust someone that you think has mental problems?

[Sammi79]

I don't have to know. There are only so many hours in the day, and both events are held over the same number of days. I already refuted your absurd attempt to claim that there is 6 hours of racing each day at Reno. So, until you can show that there is a lot more racing at Reno than at an F1 event, we're going with my version, because all the available facts support me.

:grin: To make a meaningful comparison, yes, unfortunately, you do have to know. The events are not held over the same number of days and there are at least useable 8hrs on any good day, for any activity. You have no facts to support your claim that the racing at Reno is limited to a few minutes per day. The lack of facts does not support you. Err.. who is 'we'?

He seems to think that I have mental problems. Do you really think it's a good idea to trust someone that you think has mental problems?

Either you are admitting he's right, or you have a complete lack of respect and dignity. At least an insane person would have an excuse. Whats yours?

OT, thanks for that last video that is as clear a look at the events before the crash as we will ever get. Can anyone see exactly when the tail wheel actually pops out? If it occurs preceding the over bank it could be the cause. Either that or something else broke in the trim system of which the visible sign was the separating left elevator tab moments later. Sadly I think the final results of the investigation will be speculative anyway, due to there being not enough evidence left.

Regards,
Sam.

[IamNotDavid]

:grin: To make a meaningful comparison, yes, unfortunately, you do have to know.

No, I don't have to know. Both events are held over the same number of days. That's really all I need.

[IamNotDavid]

Either you are admitting he's right, or you have a complete lack of respect and dignity. At least an insane person would have an excuse. Whats yours?


I definitely have a complete lack of respect for him. If he's going to whine to me in private about Luthier not giving him any credit, then trash me in public, I'd say that he's the one lacking dignity.

[Sternjaeger II]

Coming from someone who sent me PMs whining about not getting any credit from Luthier, this is pretty funny.

yep, I'm sure that what I was trying to do with my PM was whining, not explaining my perspective on something that eventually got you banned. But if you feel like disclosing content of PMs to other members, feel free to do so, I'm not the one with problems here.

I can only feel compassion for the people around you in real life, at least here we have an option to put you on the ignore list.

But you know what? It has become a matter of principle now, we managed to have you banned once, and we hoped this would teach you a lesson, but obviously it didn't. I think we can have you permanently banned, and maybe it's the best solution for you more than for us, you really really need to have this mental issue of yours addressed for good man, you're kinda scary.

[Sternjaeger II]

I definitely have a complete lack of respect for him. If he's going to whine to me in private about Luthier not giving him any credit, then trash me in public, I'd say that he's the one lacking dignity.

fortunately your respect is something I can live without.

I didn't whine with you in private about Luthier though, I explained a perspective on a thread where you behaved just like this. This was back when I thought you could come to reason and accept the fact that people might have an opinion different from yours.

Trashing you in public on the other hand had nothing to do with that topic, but hey, I don't think it's me alone here that thinks we could well do without your presence in this forum.

[IamNotDavid]

Trying to get me banned because you can't dispute what I have said about Reno air racing would definitely be a highlight for this board. I can see why Luthier has been mocking you.

[Sternjaeger II]

Trying to get me banned because you can't dispute what I have said about Reno air racing would definitely be a highlight for this board. I can see why Luthier has been mocking you.

We're not trying to get you banned, you're doing it yourself, like you did the last time, because you obviously have some kind of issue.

And for the record, I don't need to dispute what you said about Reno, truth is that you know zero about aviation, aerodynamics, FAA regulations and Reno itself, but unlike the others you can't wait for an official report of the FAA, you need to blurt out sentences that are specifically intended to provoke a flame war. Don't you really see how grotesque your show is?

I came to the conclusion that it's a hobby of yours, and your style is the signature that distinguishes your disturb.

Again, you're trying to provoke a reaction by talking nonsense and mentioning Luthier in a topic that has nothing to do with him.

I still think that you should get banned, and not just cos you're a troll, but to help you with your condition, seriously man, if you really are a doctor (ironic that you used the same name of Dr David Hayward from All My Children), you should be able to see that you have a problem yourself.

[IamNotDavid]

Stern, you just broke the irony meter on my PC. I feel bad for Luthier. You have some serious problems.

[Sammi79]

No, I don't have to know. Both events are held over the same number of days. That's really all I need.

The events are not held over the same number of days.

See how I did that? missing out one part of my statement in your quote doesn't mean It didn't get said now does it? You have no idea how much time is spent racing at Reno, so unfortunately you cannot refute my 'absurd claim'

both seasons take place across a year, that's really all I need.

I hope you can get some help with whatever is troubling you. I am going to ignore you now. Life is too short and your insensitive holier than thou bigotry is rather boring, not to mention repetitive.

Peace.
Sam.

[Sternjaeger II]

Stern, you just broke the irony meter on my PC. I feel bad for Luthier. You have some serious problems.

..pssst,you're doing it again,it's not working..

[JG52Krupi]

We're not trying to get you banned, you're doing it yourself, like you did the last time, because you obviously have some kind of issue.

And for the record, I don't need to dispute what you said about Reno, truth is that you know zero about aviation, aerodynamics, FAA regulations and Reno itself, but unlike the others you can't wait for an official report of the FAA, you need to blurt out sentences that are specifically intended to provoke a flame war. Don't you really see how grotesque your show is?

I came to the conclusion that it's a hobby of yours, and your style is the signature that distinguishes your disturb.

Again, you're trying to provoke a reaction by talking nonsense and mentioning Luthier in a topic that has nothing to do with him.

I still think that you should get banned, and not just cos you're a troll, but to help you with your condition, seriously man, if you really are a doctor (ironic that you used the same name of Dr David Hayward from All My Children), you should be able to see that you have a problem yourself.

+1 Well said.

[IamNotDavid]

both seasons take place across a year, that's really all I need.


It's all you need if you want to distort the relative danger of the 2 events. In the real world a single F1 event and a Reno event take place over a similar timespan, and, therefor, must have a similar amount of activity. Both events have qualifying, practice, and racing. It's simply not possible to have significantly more racing at a Reno event that at an F1 event.

Equating a single Reno event with an entire F1 season is completely absurd.

[IamNotDavid]

..pssst,you're doing it again,it's not working..


...psssst.... Right back at ya...

[IamNotDavid]

By the way, whether or not I have "issues", 2 die for every 5 Reno events. The math does not change no matter how many issues you think I have.

[Blackdog_kt]

Give it a rest or i'm taking out the banhammer. And no, i don't accept PMs about it and won't discuss it further. This thread has been going to the dumps for quite a while now and it's a shame because it does contain valid information and i wouldn't want to lock it and spoil it for everyone who's debating in good spirit.

So i'd rather exclude the agitators and delete their posts so that nobody will know they ever existed, in the interest of providing the majority with a suitable venue to discuss this aviation incident: if it comes to the point where someone has to suffer a penalty, it's the minority that has to suffer for the benefit of the majority, especially if the minority is the one stirring the pot in the first place.

Disagreeing about the thread topic = good, it's all about exchanging opinions.
Trying to force a personal opinion onto others and turning things personal = e-fascism, it's not tolerated and will be responded to in kind by restricting the posting privileges of the offenders

Either learn that you speak for yourself first and foremost and not everyone else, or don't bother posting any further.

Excuse my blunt tone, but it seems that being polite and long-winded is seen as a weakness by some, so i'll say it in a language that will be better understood by them: don't disrupt the forum discussions by making things personally antagonistic, by bogging every discussion down to the usual drivel it's encroaching on the freedom of other members to use the forum in its intended manner and it's something that's taken very seriously by the moderating team. So either straighten up and fly right or GTFO and don't return.
I can easily ban someone and delete every single one of their posts, which is a troll's biggest fear: nobody will know they were ever here. So either play nice with other people or go to your room and play by yourself.

Some people need to understand that not everyone will agree with them and when each side has presented their opinion and arguments, it's a good time to call it a day and have all involved parties agree that they disagree. End of.

[JG52Krupi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_fatal_accidents

That's only drivers not including team members and civilians... and only F1 not the other races!

Yes in recent years safety restrictions have reduced the number of fatalities, but look at the amount of money they have that allowed them to do that and how different it is to flying.... To be perfectly honest comparing these two sports is rather foolish!

[JG52Krupi]

Give it a rest or i'm taking out the banhammer. And no, i don't accept PMs about it and won't discuss it further. This thread has been going to the dumps for quite a while now and it's a shame because it does contain valid information and i wouldn't want to lock it and spoil it for everyone who's debating in good spirit.

So i'd rather exclude the agitators and delete their posts so that nobody will know they ever existed, in the interest of providing the majority with a suitable venue to discuss this aviation incident: if it comes to the point where someone has to suffer a penalty, it's the minority that has to suffer for the benefit of the majority, especially if the minority is the one stirring the pot in the first place.

Disagreeing about the thread topic = good, it's all about exchanging opinions.
Trying to force a personal opinion onto others and turning things personal = e-fascism, it's not tolerated and will be responded to in kind by restricting the posting privileges of the offenders

Either learn that you speak for yourself first and foremost and not everyone else, or don't bother posting any further.

Excuse my blunt tone, but it seems that being polite and long-winded is seen as a weakness by some, so i'll say it in a language that will be better understood by them: don't disrupt the forum discussions by making things personally antagonistic, by bogging every discussion down to the usual drivel it's encroaching on the freedom of other members to use the forum in its intended manner and it's something that's taken very seriously by the moderating team. So either straighten up and fly right or GTFO and don't return.
I can easily ban someone and delete every single one of their posts, which is a troll's biggest fear: nobody will know they were ever here. So either play nice with other people or go to your room and play by yourself.

Some people need to understand that not everyone will agree with them and when each side has presented their opinion and arguments, it's a good time to call it a day and have all involved parties agree that they disagree. End of.

TBH from what I have read most ppl are willing to see both sides of the argument and only a handful that are not... one of these may have been banned before :rolleyes:

[IamNotDavid]

To be perfectly honest comparing these two sports is rather foolish!

If you can think of any other spectator sport to compare it to you should post it.

[JG52Krupi]

If you can think of any other spectator sport to compare it to you should post it.

Other aircraft races for a start :confused: :rolleyes:

[IamNotDavid]

Other aircraft races for a start :confused: :rolleyes:

Like Red Bull? That was shut down for safety reasons (prior to any deaths). What else is there?

[JG52Krupi]

Like Red Bull? That was shut down for safety reasons (prior to any deaths). What else is there?

The Red Bull Air Race that might be returning in 2012 you mean? :rolleyes: and Aero GP as well...

[IamNotDavid]

The Red Bull Air Race that might be returning in 2012 you mean? :rolleyes: and Aero GP as well...

Yes, the Red Bull series that was stopped before anyone was killed.

How does Reno's record of 2 pilot deaths for every 5 events compare to those 2 race series?

[JG52Krupi]

Yes, the Red Bull series that was stopped before anyone was killed.

How does Reno's record of 2 pilot deaths for every 5 events compare to those 2 race series?

Well thats false it wasnt stopped for that reason and it hopefully will be back.

They are far more comparable than F1 :confused: :rolleyes:

[IamNotDavid]

This is from the Red Bull website:

The organization will use this opportunity to fast track the technological advancements currently in the making which would further improve the already high levels of safety.

I suppose they could be lying about why they shut it down.

In any case, you didn't answer the question. How does Reno's record of 2 pilot deaths per 5 events compare to the other aircraft race series? Considering that Red Bull hasn't had a fatality yet, I'm guessing that Reno doesn't look very good in comparison

[AndyJWest]

So, as statement that Red Bull intends to "further improve the already high levels of safety" means that it "was stopped before anyone was killed". That is utter hogwash, and even for a troll, a poor effort...

[IamNotDavid]

So, as statement that Red Bull intends to "further improve the already high levels of safety" means that it "was stopped before anyone was killed". That is utter hogwash, and even for a troll, a poor effort...

Why mention you're implementing safety changes if you shut it down for some other reason?

By the way, what is wrong with saying that it was shut down before anyone was killed? No one was killed in the series. I'm not seeing the problem with that?

[AndyJWest]

The problem is with your logic. But whatever - you seem keen to demonstrate your stupidity further, so why should I bother arguing...

[Sternjaeger II]

Give it a rest or i'm taking out the banhammer. And no, i don't accept PMs about it and won't discuss it further. This thread has been going to the dumps for quite a while now and it's a shame because it does contain valid information and i wouldn't want to lock it and spoil it for everyone who's debating in good spirit.

So i'd rather exclude the agitators and delete their posts so that nobody will know they ever existed, in the interest of providing the majority with a suitable venue to discuss this aviation incident: if it comes to the point where someone has to suffer a penalty, it's the minority that has to suffer for the benefit of the majority, especially if the minority is the one stirring the pot in the first place.

Disagreeing about the thread topic = good, it's all about exchanging opinions.
Trying to force a personal opinion onto others and turning things personal = e-fascism, it's not tolerated and will be responded to in kind by restricting the posting privileges of the offenders

Either learn that you speak for yourself first and foremost and not everyone else, or don't bother posting any further.

Excuse my blunt tone, but it seems that being polite and long-winded is seen as a weakness by some, so i'll say it in a language that will be better understood by them: don't disrupt the forum discussions by making things personally antagonistic, by bogging every discussion down to the usual drivel it's encroaching on the freedom of other members to use the forum in its intended manner and it's something that's taken very seriously by the moderating team. So either straighten up and fly right or GTFO and don't return.
I can easily ban someone and delete every single one of their posts, which is a troll's biggest fear: nobody will know they were ever here. So either play nice with other people or go to your room and play by yourself.

Some people need to understand that not everyone will agree with them and when each side has presented their opinion and arguments, it's a good time to call it a day and have all involved parties agree that they disagree. End of.

I'm sorry man, but to be honest this is not a fair assessment of the situation. It is quite blatant what a certain member is doing here, a behaviour for which he has been banned before, the fact that nobody agrees with him and that he's starting his usual trolling behaviour is a sign of his intentions me thinks.

It's obvious that when in a topic there's a call for respect on dead people and this is not taken into consideration, there's something that doesn't quite add, if anything to common sense.

[Blackdog_kt]

He doens't have to agree with you and you don't have to agree with him either. Accepting that an argument is not a "win/lose" convincing contest but a means to see different perspectives by talking to people of different dispositions and all that jazz ;)

It's more the manner that i find disrupting of the normal conversation flow, stating an opinion and presenting some arguments vs being repetitively antagonistic for the sake of it.

TBH from what I have read most ppl are willing to see both sides of the argument and only a handful that are not... one of these may have been banned before :rolleyes:

You're exactly right, the vast majority are reasonable people around here that might snap from time to time, something i consider part of human nature and don't go after (heck, that's exactly what i did in my previous post, i need to vent off some steam too once per month :-P ).

I just don't like pointing fingers specifically so i describe a situation and let it sink in on its own, if anyone is guilty of it rest assured that he knows who he is and what kind of moderating action to expect ;)

[ATAG_Doc]

As more facts are learned about what happened this would be an interesting thread. Just don't reply to the agitator(s). :) Talk around them. I think Jimmy had something happen to him like a stoke or something. There was a new video posted that clearly shows the trim tab coming off well after the climb-n-roll. Which makes me thinks perhaps he jerked the stick back for some reason causing enormous stress to be placed on the air-frame causing the tab to fly off.

P.S. We're all human and subject to venting now and then.

[Helrza]

As more facts are learned about what happened this would be an interesting thread. Just don't reply to the agitator(s). :) Talk around them. I think Jimmy had something happen to him like a stoke or something. There was a new video posted that clearly shows the trim tab coming off well after the climb-n-roll. Which makes me thinks perhaps he jerked the stick back for some reason causing enormous stress to be placed on the air-frame causing the tab to fly off.

P.S. We're all human and subject to venting now and then.

funny you should say that, becuase the tail wheel also poped out b4 the climb and roll also. Might be the end of the trim tab theory.

[ATAG_Doc]

funny you should say that, becuase the tail wheel also poped out b4 the climb and roll also. Might be the end of the trim tab theory.

Yes you're right I forgot to mention that good catch. Indeed it did.

[Crumpp]

funny you should say that, becuase the tail wheel also poped out b4 the climb and roll also. Might be the end of the trim tab theory.

The trim tab does not have to separate from the airplane for the elevator trim to break.

[Madfish]

I'm sorry man, but to be honest this is not a fair assessment of the situation. It is quite blatant what a certain member is doing here, a behaviour for which he has been banned before, the fact that nobody agrees with him and that he's starting his usual trolling behaviour is a sign of his intentions me thinks.

It's obvious that when in a topic there's a call for respect on dead people and this is not taken into consideration, there's something that doesn't quite add, if anything to common sense.

Too be honest I can't agree with this. Some points he makes I can't agree with but a lot of valid points are in there as well. So "nobody" is wrong. Partially I agree with him but I also don't agree with the defenders.

Secondly instead of pointing fingers at him you should realize that if you look at this thread objectively most of you guys are ganging up on him, insulting, twisting words etc. as well. Not sure who started it but the way I see it it's only logical: This is a forum for plane lovers (warbirds even) so it's natural that many are defending a lost cause.

It's a fact that reno races are a risky gamble, due to many mechanics of this series, and not a controlled environment. They should re-think their safety standards. That doesn't mean it has to be banned though.

The way I see it the series needs to take a break and see how they could improve like Red Bull does it. I mentioned a dozen of things they could do to improve, to say that there is nothing that could be done is just wrong.




That said I also don't believe that a trim tab needs to come off. But I also can barely believe that just a trim tab falling off would be the cause.
I assume there was something happening before it came off but it's hard to say what at this point. I guess we'll have to wait for an official report.

[winny]

Popular Mechanics has done an article on the crash (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/how-a-small-piece-of-metal-caused-the-reno-air-race-crash-6481596).

Some stuff I'd not heard before in it.

[ATAG_Doc]

Winny thank you for posting this!! Much appreciated!!

[winny]

Winny thank you for posting this!! Much appreciated!!

No Problem, the interesting bit for me was the Pit Crew guy saying that the telemetry coming back from Galloping Ghost showed that it pulled +22.5 G.

[major_setback]

Popular Mechanics has done an article on the crash (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/how-a-small-piece-of-metal-caused-the-reno-air-race-crash-6481596).

Some stuff I'd not heard before in it.



"In 1999, another highly modified P-51 called Miss Ashley II, piloted by Gary Levitz, lost its trim tab during an Unlimited race. It pitched violently upward just as Galloping Ghost did. When it went vertical, the plane broke up..."

That means 3 racing Mustangs have lost trim tabs!! :-(

Why did they not abandon using them after 2 accidents?

[winny]

That means 3 racing Mustangs have lost trim tabs!! :-(

Why did they not abandon using them after 2 accidents?

I've change my mind about this. I've switched to ban it.

Simply because it's the 3rd time it's happened. I only knew of 2. I reckon that you only need 2 similar accidents to identify a problem. As you said why were they still using them?

For them to continue racing when they knew that the failiure of the trim tab
resulted in such a violent reaction, and had resulted in one of the aircraft breaking up mid air, was at the very least reckless.

[JG52Krupi]

Ban the modded P-51 unless they can find and remove the source of the failure and remove it.

[ElAurens]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCBbosq9-RI&feature=player_embedded

Enough talk of bans.

If you cannot understand this, then I have nothing else for you.

[ATAG_Doc]

Ban the modded P-51 unless they can find and remove the source of the failure and remove it.

More often than not the problem is in between the stick and the seat.

[ATAG_Doc]

Ok ok ok I have a solution. We need the UN to demand the manufacture perform a safety recall immediately and have this fixed at your nearest dealer at no charge.

[ElAurens]

More often than not the problem is in between the stick and the seat.


Look, it's a racing machine.

I don't care if it's built by North American Aviation, Ferrari, Lola, Ducati, or Ford or Chevy, racing machines have failures. It's the nature of the beast.

I'm just really shocked and disappointed in the reactions from people on this board.

As Helen Keller said, "Life is a either great adventure, or nothing". Methinks for some of you it is most definitely nothing. A bunch of fearful apparatchiks letting the state hold their hand and keep them out of danger.

I pity you.

[Madfish]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCBbosq9-RI&feature=player_embedded

Enough talk of bans.

If you cannot understand this, then I have nothing else for you.

Understand what? The guy makes claims but he isn't without failure. He's very eloquent and known for exactly that but posting this video certainly doesn't solve the issues.

He only talks about risk and reward, "that the things people always want to ban are the things that they themselves never use or do" although many are plane fans and visiting such races and exhibitions. He also compares casulties in New York to Reno - as if everyone in New York was only there for fun and walks off after a day or two. Further he carefully avoids to mention the killing of native indians but of course bashes other countries instead - way too go - but way too naive.
Also he claims the big 3 things, that kill the most people, needed to be banned are: disease, socialism and then war. I do not need to explain just HOW wrong he is. Do I? ;)

The thing is he makes an emotional argument but he's wrong as well. If you'd actually read my posts and maybe interact with the moderate people you'd see this but instead you have your own little war with the extremes and always make sure to pour oil into the fire.


Freedom was nice for the first US Americans that experienced it, I agree. But was it nice for the REAL americans? The indians? Was it nice for the slaves? Total freedom is something we can't yet have. Too many people are way too extreme - in fact probably all humans are.

But there is something this guy forgets: We are humans and have the ability to use our brains. Does freedom mean we should totally forget the origin of flight? The history of engineering? Why not make airplanes as unsafe as possible because obviously it's wrong to expect that safety standards get raised continuously just because they could be and the people know that planes can crash.

That's rubbish!

It doesn't matter how free anyone is or if they are aware of risks. It is the duty of EVERY engineer out there to make that exact same choice of risk and reward. Not just once in his lifetime but continuously! That means that safety standards always improve and have to improve to ensure we do not die from desease like in the medieval age or die from a car crash at 40mph.

Now, this guy you posted is probably from the US. Obviously there is media pressure and everything but not here where I'm from. The way I see it, and I said so many times, is that there is an obvious flaw in the machine and the mechanics of how Reno works.
They need to adress this - not because accidents can happen but because they WILL happen and it is thus imperative to assume that accidents will happen and try finding solutions to avoid them or reduce their impact! Literally impact in this case...

Why do you think cruise ships have lifeboats on board etc.? They rarely ever have an accident but in case they do passengers NEED them. Why do cars have safety frames, airbags, intelligent brake systems and seatbelts? Because everyone should die in a crash at 40mph like this guy suggests? :rolleyes:

So again: why are you trying so hard finding excuses for why people had to die instead of objectively trying to evaluate possible improvements to security? I think there are many steps Reno could take to at least make the races a little safer:

First they should consider if this plane is safe or has a design flaw (like many planes in history) that renders it unusable for the unlimited class. Eventually this flaw could also be fixed though.
But there is more (again, since I posted this twice already I think):
- autopilot in case of pilot failure (blacked out pilots would be history)
- autopilot in case of race track violations
- better course layouts that avoid potential plane / spectator colisions if possible
- better telemetry
- better preparedness of emergency groundcrews and nearby hospitals
- new emergency technology


Last but not least I will show you a perfect example of engineering and not just stuffing pure horse power into a 60year old weapons platform tuned for racing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaU9PnXU1Pc
(Video courtesy: Claudio Tavella)
A pilot, who survived after his plane's wings came off, says he'll continue flying. Spectators at an air show in Argentina saw a small plane crash into the ground during a manoeuver. The pilot was strapped into his seat when he pulled his parachute, and the plane was lowered to the ground leaving him with little more than a burnt foot.

I'm NOT for banning but I am simply amazed by the number of people that seriously do not even consider engineering at all. Yes, a few ten thousand years ago humans were nothing but apes - but today we can learn from mistakes! Something that Reno seems to be imune to. I wonder if such people are really the kind you want to protect and not suggest to them that they need to get their stuff fixed ASAP.

[ElAurens]

Ever been involved in any type of motorsport?

I am.

You think we have a death wish?

We don't.

Think we don't obsess about safety?

We do.

Your solution, like many here seems to be to legislate. Let big brother take care of it. Make every aspect of life totally risk free.

I don't understand this mindset and never will.

Anyhow this is pointless as you are no more going to change your mind than the sky will turn lime green tomorrow.

I am glad that I am older, as I really do not want to see the world that you lot are crafting.

It will suck.

[Madfish]

Up to some point I could feel that some had a valid reason to argument against IamDavid or whatever the name is. But this is just... a weird response. You know that right?

There is something called progress, is there not? For example that neat little machine you just used to post here: You surely know how much it has changed. Especially for motorsports?! It made a ton of things safer while having a lot less risk involved. What the hell...

Fire safe suits, helmets, great sturdy chassis, braking systems, gripping tires, electronics and tele data that sometimes prevents catastrophical mass collisions etc. Not to mention that all modern fighter airplanes are dependant on computers anyways. What in the world is there against such a system as an emergency device?


Is a parachute system or for example an autopilot, in case the pilot is flying outside the race tracks corridor or maybe even DEAD, really such a bad world for you and ruins the (blood?)"sport"? Last time I checked the "sport" part was to race and not to crash to the ground because of an issue that maybe happened twice already!
Also an "autopilot" could've eventually even prevented that crash. At least it could've been possible to stabilize the plane after the trim tab came off and maybe let it crash elsewhere. See parachute.

Yes, maybe it'd take 50mph or so away due to increased load - but that's not such a big deal is it? If speed is your issue go and start supersonic speed jet racing.


Also you sound like that weird guy in the video, assuming that only YOU are involved with sports. Do you really want that? I already mentioned (in this very thread) that almost every bone in my body was broken at some point. But yes, please teach us/me more about risks in sport and how safety equipment is totally unnecessary and for the retarded young kids.
There is a BIG difference between adrenaline junkies and real sportsmen. As for me I'm a junkie too sometimes like we all are (hence the broken bones) but I wouldn't come close to endangering others. And if there ARE options that would make things safer without even changing the activities much then I'd go for them for sure!


I could personally live even with them keeping the series the way it is if they explicitly say and admit that they don't do the best they can to avoid accidents and not making sure everything is as safe as it could be. Because spectators are not expecting that in the 21st century. We're not living in the medieval ages anymore. And Reno does seem to not want to improve - they stick with their old "muscle car in the air" methods and those are actually outdated.
On the other hand side I believe such a statement would be insane and it'd be better if they'd at least say: "hey, we have 3 crashed p51s that most likely suffered the same mechnical failure - let's try and see if we can make things a little safer! Engineers, what options do we have now to learn from it and don't have a 4th crash with the same cause soon eventually?"

Personally, if I compare the video of the stunt plane coming down on a parachute and the pilot being unharmed vs. the one with a p51 crashing (doesn't matter what it hits really) I must say I just love modern engineering ;)

[Sammi79]

Madfish, no-one here has suggested that safety should be ignored, you say 'listen to the moderate crowd' when its obvious that you support Davids view, and he is far from moderate. I am arguing that knee jerk reactions like imposing bans is not a sensible solution. You insult anyone arguing against your (Davids) point of view by calling them childish/naive and still you want to cling to some sort of moral high ground, though when I called you before on this point you declined to answer.:rolleyes:

1.autopilot - would probably not help in the case of mechanical failure. Still I'd say worth a try.
2.better course layouts - not possible to achieve your desired result without banning spectators.
3.better telemetry - Yep like this. but then the Galloping Ghost did have telemetry afaik.
4.Better preparedness of emergency ground crews and nearby hospitals - how were they, in this instance, unprepared?

Dragster style parachute brakes might be an idea, to get the speed down before a possible impact, though in some cases the effect would be marginal due to the low altitude. Also, it would need some kind of automatic trigger, as well as a manual trigger, to ensure its use in case of pilot failure. So quite quickly what at first seems like a good idea becomes decidedly more difficult and complex, and is prone to failure in itself. Engineering principles do not mean safety. Any damn fool can build a bridge that can take x many tons but it takes a really skilled engineer to build one that takes x many tons and not a gram more. Ask any engineer, that is the essence of engineering.

Legislation is necessary to a point but it can go too far especially if in sudden reaction to a catastrophic accident. It should be planned and cross examined for a long time before it is made law. F1 has IMHO been almost completely destroyed by legislation. Jackie Stewart who was instrumental in the 60s and 70s for getting the drivers to stand together and demand the teams and circuit owners provide for their safety, as he was sick of seeing his friends die, has recently been quoted as saying 'I think this has gone a little too far' in regard to the current state of F1. It is artificial, uber safe and uber boring. Much like the red bull races.

Anyway, until the official report we will have to wait regarding the cause of the accident. Only if they can be certain as to the cause (which is sadly unlikely IMO) should any drastic measures be taken. Until then, by all means, get the folks to see if they can't make that elevator assembly more robust, and make sure that people who attend events like these are aware of the risks. If they like you find these risks unacceptable then don't go. simple. If people do want to accept these risks, pilots/spectators alike, who are you or anyone to tell them that they can't? They are not hurting you. I ask you to look at this statement from a family of one of the unfortunate victims :-

http://www.ktvn.com/story/15519345/air-race-victims-family-wants-races-to-continue?clienttype=printable

[Sternjaeger II]

The video posted by ElAurens is a bit weird: it starts incredibly well with an accurate analysis of what happened and then rambles on some weird political agenda..

After having waited for reports, gathered enough info and read all of the posts, point of view, talked to other pilots and technicians, here's my 2 cents:


1) The accident obviously happened for a mechanical failure. The pilot was very unlucky to be in a position that because of torque and speed ended up in that horrible vertical dive, Hanna was way luckier when it happened to him.

2) people should be free to do whatever hobby they want to with their money, and if you want to attend, you go watch them at your own risk. It's stupid to attend such a show and never remotely think that you might get killed; if you don't, then natural selection will do its work.

3) they shouldn't ban Reno, it's silly, that is more of a UK methodology "look, it hurts! Let's ban it!", and the guy is spot on in the video when he says that people always want to ban what they have no interest on, without understanding that they're limiting their own freedom.

Having said this, I would still consider the fact that an accident that occurred in more than one occasion because of the same causes should be a warning sign that something needs to be changed.

That's when you go from being free to being irresponsible, because there will be people in the racing circuit that are aware of the issue but will still feel like it's ok to deal with the thrill, disregarding the fact that they might kill themselves, other pilots and the crowd.

Bottom line: they wanna race? Let them race, but it would be fair to have a special experimental category for them, since they're really pushing the boundaries there, it's no garage built microlight.

Uh and to the other armchair experts who started blaming the pilot's age: have the decency at least to say you're sorry to have jumped to such a conclusion, based on a stereotype.


Regarding the use of ballistic parachutes: they're of no use for a machine that is that heavy and that travels at those speeds.

[BP_Tailspin]

"In 1999, another highly modified P-51 called Miss Ashley II, piloted by Gary Levitz, lost its trim tab during an Unlimited race. It pitched violently upward just as Galloping Ghost did. When it went vertical, the plane broke up..."

That means 3 racing Mustangs have lost trim tabs!! :-(

Why did they not abandon using them after 2 accidents?

“another highly modified P-51” Miss Ashley II was not a P-51, it was a hybrid home built unlimited racer with Learjet 23 wings & stab and a Rolls-Royce Griffon engine from an Avro Shackleton bomber.

“lost its trim tab” Miss Ashley II did not have trim tabs on its elevators. It lost its rudder and part of the vertical stabilizer followed by the empennage.

“It pitched violently upward” No, it pitched “violently downward” after the empennage separated causing the left wing to separate.

“That means 3 racing Mustangs have lost trim tabs!! Why did they not abandon using them after 2 accidents?” Because there was only one incident with no injures before this year’s race.

No one should abandon anything after 2 accidents! The Wright brothers would beat you silly if they read this rubbish.



http://www.cubpilot.com/Tspin/MA600a.jpg
NOTE: No elevator trim tabs on Miss Ashley II
http://www.cubpilot.com/Tspin/MA600b.jpg
NOTE: This is not a P-51, its a hybrid home built unlimited racer


I've change my mind about this. I've switched to ban it.

Simply because it's the 3rd time it's happened. I only knew of 2. I reckon that you only need 2 similar accidents to identify a problem. As you said why were they still using them?

For them to continue racing when they knew that the failiure of the trim tab
resulted in such a violent reaction, and had resulted in one of the aircraft breaking up mid air, was at the very least reckless.

I must agree … in part … this entire thread is “at the very least reckless” … Your opinion is based on pure speculation; maybe you’ll change your mind again after the facts are known.

[IamNotDavid]

The problem isn't trim tabs, the problem is Reno. 2 deaths for every 5 events at Reno. That is a pretty ugly statistic.

[ATAG_Doc]

Miss Ashley II just sounds so sexy :)

[major_setback]

“That means 3 racing Mustangs have lost trim tabs!! Why did they not abandon using them after 2 accidents?” Because there was only one incident with no injures before this year’s race.

No one should abandon anything after 2 accidents! The Wright brothers would beat you silly if they read this rubbish.




OK, 2 accidents. After the first (potentially fatal) one, questions should have been asked, and if it turns out that they haven't then there will a lot of answering needed to be done. If an accident or potential accident has occurred and steps haven't been taken to prevent it happening again then someone will be held responsible. And yes, if the Wright brothers had crashed killing 11 people there would definitely have been a huge debate on whether they should be allowed to continue.

Does anyone here actually think the race would run again next year (or any year in the near future) if they again allowed the inclusion of a modified P51 similar to Galloping Ghost? I can't see anyone going there again under any circumstances, at least not in the sort of number to make it worthwhile for the organizers.

I don't think there should be a ban put on any sort of air show. I've been to many and enjoy them immensely. I think they should be made to be a safe as possible. This one obviously wasn't.

[IamNotDavid]

I don't think there should be a ban put on any sort of air show. I've been to many and enjoy them immensely. I think they should be made to be a safe as possible. This one obviously wasn't.

This was not an air show, this was air racing. It's a completely different beast. If air shows had the same fatality rates as Reno there would be no air show pilots left alive.

[ElAurens]

Troll.

[IamNotDavid]

Troll.

If you can't dispute the facts, calling people names is the next best option...

[BP_Tailspin]

Here’s a link to a list of airshow accidents and the 5 worst airshow disasters …

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airshow_accidents_and_incidents

1) Sknyliv
The worst airshow accident in history occurred on July 27, 2002, near Lviv, Ukraine. More than 10,000 spectators were gathered at Sknyliv Airfield to watch the aeronautics commemmorating the 60th anniversary of the Ukrainian Air Force's 14th Air Corps. A Ukrainian Air Force Sukhoi Su-27, a twin-engine Russian-built jet fighter, was performing an aerobatics roll when the pilots lost control and the pilots ejected as the plane shot downward. The plane initially hit the ground in an area free of spectators, but burst into flames as it cartwheeled into the crowd. Seventy-seven people were killed, including 28 children, and 543 people were injured. Ten of the injured were permanently disabled. The pilots, who survived with minor injuries, were sentenced to prison terms on charges of negligence and failing to follow orders. The airfield is now Lviv International Airport, which now welcomes nearly half a million passengers each year.

2) Ramstein
On Aug. 28, 1988, about 300,000 spectators were gathered at Ramstein near Kaiserslautern, West Germany, for the Flugtag '88 airshow. An Italian Air Force team was attempting to make a heart formation when the plane that represented the "arrow" piercing the heart struck aircraft within that group. The Aermacchi MB-339, a light attack aircraft, hit the ground and exploded, tumbling into the crowd. Of the two Aermacchis struck in mid-air, one exploded upon impact and the pilot of the other was able to eject, but hit the ground before his parachute opened. That aircraft struck a standing Black Hawk helicopter, killing the American pilot. The seven other airplanes in the maneuver landed safely at nearby Sembach airbase. In addition to the three pilots, 67 spectators died and 346 were seriously injured. The emergency response was hampered by the lack of coordination between German crews and American military personnel on the U.S. air base. Most of the deaths were due to flying shrapnel and burns.

3) Sacramento
On Sept. 24, 1972, crowds were gathered for the 2-day Golden West Sport Aviation Show at the Sacramento Executive Airport in California's capital. At a nearby shopping center, a Little League football team was celebrating in a Farrell's Ice Cream Parlor. An F-86 Sabre fighter, manufactured in 1954 for the Royal Canadian Air Force, overshot the end of the runway on takeoff on a manuever where the pilot dipped down toward the ground. It went over a levee, across a street and through a car, killing the couple inside, and struck the ice cream parlor, where it exploded. The pilot survived with a broken arm, but 22 people were killed, including a dozen children, an entire family of four, and nine family members of one 8-year-old survivor. Twenty-eight were injured. The National Transportation Safety Board investigation determined that the pilot, lacking experience with the Sabrejet, tried to lift off too quickly and over-rotated. Ultimately, the land use around the airport was also redone in a comprehensive zoning plan.

4) Flagler
On Sept. 15, 1951, more than 1,000 people were gathered in the town on the Eastern Plains of Colorado for an airshow sponsored by the Flagler Lions Club to mark Fall Festival Day. A single-engine plane flown by a pilot from Lowry Air Force Base hooked a wing during a maneuver and crashed into the crowd. The pilot was killed as well as 19 people on the ground, 13 of them children. Reports later indicated that the pilot had arrived late for that day's safety briefing and was flying 300 feet lower than the minimum 500 feet height.

5) Reno
The Reno Air Races had been no stranger to pilot fatalities before the Sept. 16, 2011, crash at Reno Stead Airport: from 1964 to 2010, 19 pilots have lost their lives in accidents during the races. In the airshow, one of the few venues that continues to host air racing, high-performance aircraft race around pylons on courses ranging from 3 to 8 miles. Pilot Jimmy Leeward, who had flown stunt planes in movies, was flying a modified World War II fighter, the P-51 Mustang, when the plane pitched upward and then took a nosedive. It struck the box seats in front of the main spectator grandstand, but did not explode. Parts of the aircraft fanned out and struck people in the crowd. Including the pilot, 10 were killed and about 70 of the injured were taken to hospitals.

I’m thinking life would be a bit less risky if we all would drive a Toyota Prius and stick to Computer Games.

Remember IL2 air racing on Friday evenings, that was a blast and no one got hurt.

[Viking]

Troll.

Troll!

[Gerbil Maximus]

Troll!
Troll!