Mustang accident

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by Madfish

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...

Originally Posted by Sammi79

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...







Choose one.

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

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

Mock me for what?

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by IamNotDavid

...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.

Originally Posted by bongodriver

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.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by IamNotDavid

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.

Originally Posted by bongodriver

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.

[bongodriver]

Only the FAA can stop that.

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