Mustang accident

Originally Posted by Sammi79

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]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

Yeah that ^

Great minds think alike....

Originally Posted by 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 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]

Originally Posted by IamNotDavid

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.

Originally Posted by IamNotDavid

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?

Originally Posted by IamNotDavid

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]

Originally Posted by IamNotDavid

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.

Originally Posted by winny

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).

Originally Posted by winny

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.

Originally Posted by winny

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.

Originally Posted by winny

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.

Originally Posted by winny

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.

Originally Posted by Sammi79

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Seriously

Originally Posted by 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.

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.