P-51 Crashes at Reno Air Races, Spectator Casualties

[SAMRPICS]

Sad news, just hope this accident doesnt get any worse. I have never been to an air race but i must say the dangers are obvious to me. From years of watching Formula 1 i can see that accidents happen all the time, now Formula 1 and other motorsport learnt from this and took steps to make things safer for both those taking part and those spectating. The problem with air races seems to be that if an accident happens there is no real way to stop the aircraft from slamming into the ground and sometimes the pilots cant avoid the crowds despite their best efforts. This said i wouldnt for one minute disguss banning such events and if i ever do decide to go to an air race i shall do so knowing the risks.

[guamainiac]

I meant ..... fear .... at large, not Fear of Flying. Sorry.

I do not take crazy risks but I do enjoy calculated risks. Should we ban gliders? Well if we did that "Miracle on the Hudson" might not have happened because "Sully" started out as a glider instructor.

Slippery slope eh?

My lord no engine on those things. But you never have to worry about sucking a valve or the prop flying off do you?

[Fear_of_Flying]

I meant ..... fear .... at large, not Fear of Flying. Sorry.

Oops. Anyway, I don't think your example is a slippery slope. With a glider, you put only yourself in danger. With a highly modified vintage plane racing at the edge of its performance capability past grandstands filled with people, you put them at risk. And even if some of the spectators may accept the risk, do they also accept the risk on behalf of their kids? Is everyone in attendance equally aware of the risks, even first-timers who don't really know what the sport is all about? There are just too many liabilities, in my opinion, and as SAMRPICS said, there is no way to truly safeguard the spectators against an out of control aircraft.

[AVION1]

Looks like a catastrophic failure, I can not imagine flying that fast with the trim tab broken that way....

[Fear_of_Flying]

The pilot in the West Virginia crash didn't make it. No other injuries reported.

[billiam]

Oops. Anyway, I don't think your example is a slippery slope. With a glider, you put only yourself in danger. With a highly modified vintage plane racing at the edge of its performance capability past grandstands filled with people, you put them at risk. And even if some of the spectators may accept the risk, do they also accept the risk on behalf of their kids? Is everyone in attendance equally aware of the risks, even first-timers who don't really know what the sport is all about? There are just too many liabilities, in my opinion, and as SAMRPICS said, there is no way to truly safeguard the spectators against an out of control aircraft.

sorry, but a glider can also crash on top of someone or something, and kill people still. you can't ban one form of dangerous activity and not another one that is very similar. that's called the gov't choosing winners and losers.

what's going to happen after this is that people will remember this event and realize they are taking some risk in attending airshows. why ban something that is in of itself legal, but has risks? people have died from attending baseball and hockey games, due to balls/pucks hitting their heads, or from their own stupidity, like leaning out too far from the stands and falling. should we end pro sports because of those incidents?

[Fear_of_Flying]

sorry, but a glider can also crash on top of someone or something, and kill people still. you can't ban one form of dangerous activity and not another one that is very similar. that's called the gov't choosing winners and losers.

what's going to happen after this is that people will remember this event and realize they are taking some risk in attending airshows. why ban something that is in of itself legal, but has risks? people have died from attending baseball and hockey games, due to balls/pucks hitting their heads, or from their own stupidity, like leaning out too far from the stands and falling. should we end pro sports because of those incidents?

If you insist, sure, there is a matter of degree involved whenever a decision is made regarding what is in the best interests of public safety. But the government does it all the time. Walking down a city sidewalk minding your own business is pretty much okay, despite the inherent risk of a pedestrian traffic accident. Discharging a firearm in a shopping mall is not. Neither is gladiatorial combat. No picking of winners and losers, just figuring out what is a reasonable risk, and what is not.

I've already mentioned the inherent risk involved at other sporting events, and how that has been addressed over the years. The problem is, how do you minimize the risk of an out of control aircraft, one that was in all probability pushed beyond its structural limits?

If it's the idea of banning the sport that's at issue, that wouldn't need to happen anyway. There are thousands of aviation regulations in place for safety considerations, and no one seems to be the slightest bit bothered by those; I'm sure one more cleverly constructed regulation could effectively render air racing pointless without banning a thing. But we'll have to see if the sport survives this accident first. I don't think that's a guarantee given legal fallout, public sentiment, and so forth. Forget about what you might personally choose for your entertainment. Would you take your family to an air race after this? Many people will think twice about that.

[Simpleboy]

Oops. Anyway, I don't think your example is a slippery slope. With a glider, you put only yourself in danger. With a highly modified vintage plane racing at the edge of its performance capability past grandstands filled with people, you put them at risk. And even if some of the spectators may accept the risk, do they also accept the risk on behalf of their kids?

YES, THATS PART OF BEING A PARENT!
If your child was playing with a hot stove element and burnt themself I'm assuming you would petition the government that stove elements shouldnt go that hot.......

You seem to have this notion that any unneccessary risk should be made illegal, im sorry, but life doesnt work like that.

I've already mentioned the inherent risk involved at other sporting events, and how that has been addressed over the years. The problem is, how do you minimize the risk of an out of control aircraft, one that was in all probability pushed beyond its structural limits?

Any proof of that?

[Fear_of_Flying]

YES, THATS PART OF BEING A PARENT!
If your child was playing with a hot stove element and burnt themself I'm assuming you would petition the government that stove elements shouldnt go that hot.......

Part of being a responsible parent is safeguarding your child's well-being in circumstances where they lack the ability to make sound judgements for themselves. If you, as an adult, want to put yourself in harm's way, that's your prerogative, but that same latitude does not extend to decisions you make on behalf of your children.

You seem to have this notion that any unneccessary risk should be made illegal, im sorry, but life doesnt work like that.

That's your characterization of my position which, as it turns out, is untrue.

Any proof of that?

Proof of what? That they put netting in hockey arenas to stop pucks from flying into the crowd? That the various auto racing organizations have gone to great lengths to safeguard the spectators. Here: www.google.com.

If you're talking about the structural failure caused by pushing the aircraft to its limits, we now have a good indication that it was structural failure, and it seems evident that these aircraft are being pushed to their limits, but no, that is admittedly just a guess at this point.

Added: From http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,2165318.story

Don Berliner, president of the Society of Air Racing Historians and a former Reno Air Races official, said he thinks there's not much that can be done to improve race safety. He said organizers could put a speed limit on the race so fast planes cannot race anymore, or move fans farther away from the planes, but fans don't travel from all around the country to Reno every September to be miles away from the action.

"Other than moving the race course a mile or so away from the grandstands, I don't see how you can make the sport safer," Berliner said. "If you do that, all you're doing is giving spectators a much worse view.

"I'm afraid the sport is in delicate shape at the moment," he added.

Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., who has raced stock and modified cars for years, said he is a longtime fan of the air races and he hopes they can continue but only if they can assure the safety of spectators.

"If we can't protect spectators, I'd take a hard look at the future of the sport," he said.

Tom Rose is a commercial pilot in Mississippi whose father died racing in the same Reno event in 2002 in what appeared to be similar circumstances, although he crashed far from the crowd.

His father, 62-year-old Tommy Rose, was flying an experimental sport plane about 200 feet off the ground when a stabilizer broke off the tail, his son said Saturday. At that altitude, he had nowhere to go but down.

He said in his dad's case, like many crashes at the air show, he had just pushed his plane beyond its limits in an effort to win, and it broke apart.

"But you want to push your plane to its limits because you want to be competitive. That's what you're there for," he said.

[atcvector]

I know it's the immediate aftermath, but I'll be the first here to ask how justifiable a risk these airshows really are?

Being born is terminal.

You can't legislate perfect safety. I love airshows and airplane occasionnaly crash. Should we outlaw them

More people get killed every hour driving a car than die in years of airshows. Why don't we outlaw driving?
Take you stupidity elsewhere.

[Fear_of_Flying]

Being born is terminal.

You can't legislate perfect safety. I love airshows and airplane occasionnaly crash. Should we outlaw them

More people get killed every hour driving a car than die in years of airshows. Why don't we outlaw driving?
Take you stupidity elsewhere.

We've moved on to personal attacks now I see. Excellent way to get your point across. The thing is, Reno is the last airshow in North America where this type of air racing is even allowed, so I guess there must be a lot of other stupid people out there besides me.

[Rick G]

Tragic crash. Other than that, I have an observation: In some of the pics and videos moments before the crash, you can see the planes tail wheel deployed / extended. Why would he be flying in a race with the tail wheel hanging out? It seems it would cause excess drag?

Rick G.

[Simpleboy]

Part of being a responsible parent is safeguarding your child's well-being in circumstances where they lack the ability to make sound judgements for themselves. If you, as an adult, want to put yourself in harm's way, that's your prerogative, but that same latitude does not extend to decisions you make on behalf of your children.

So you think children shouldnt be allowed to go to airshows like these? We'll also ban them from going to amusement parks because something could go wrong there, and remove jungle gyms from school playgrounds because they could get seriously hurt there too......
It is a parents job to decide if those risks are satisfactorily small and ok and for their child do take them when the child cannot make the choice themselves. Yes, we've gathered you wont take your children to an airshow like this, but why does that then have to apply to everyone else? Where do you draw the line?

Proof of what? ....If you're talking about the structural failure caused by pushing the aircraft to its limits, we now have a good indication that it was structural failure, and it seems evident that these aircraft are being pushed to their limits, but no, that is admittedly just a guess at this point/

The cause of failure was what i was referring to, It could be many reasons, metal fatigue not related to excessive forces or such.

[Fear_of_Flying]

So you think children shouldnt be allowed to go to airshows like these? We'll also ban them from going to amusement parks because something could go wrong there, and remove jungle gyms from school playgrounds because they could get seriously hurt there too......
It is a parents job to decide if those risks are satisfactorily small and ok and for their child do take them when the child cannot make the choice themselves. Yes, we've gathered you wont take your children to an airshow like this, but why does that then have to apply to everyone else? Where do you draw the line?

Personally, I would draw the line here: I would not take a child to an air race in Reno that follows the format currently in place, and for an airshow in general, I would take available precautions.

Does this apply to everyone else? No, but one can't simply brush off the risk involved at airshows by saying he is willing to take that risk. These are, after all, family-oriented events. And make no mistake: legally the line must be drawn as well. You might think it's an acceptable risk to sit your 3-year-old in the front seat of your car without a booster seat, but the law does not. Should these airshows now come under that same category of unacceptable risk? That has still to be determined.

The cause of failure was what i was referring to, It could be many reasons, metal fatigue not related to excessive forces or such.

Oh, come on, now you're just stretching. A control surface snapped off this plane like a dry twig because it's a 65-year-old aircraft retooled in someone's back yard using sandpaper and a putty knife and then flown the speed of a jumbo jet making hairpin turns 100 feet off the ground.

Now that's safety!

Note to self: in the future, do not raise the possibility of banning airshows or air races on an aviation forum.

[Simpleboy]

Personally, I would draw the line here: I would not take a child to an air race in Reno that follows the format currently in place, and for an airshow in general, I would take available precautions.

Does this apply to everyone else? No, but one can't simply brush off the risk involved at airshows by saying he is willing to take that risk. These are, after all, family-oriented events. And make no mistake: legally the line must be drawn as well. You might think it's an acceptable risk to sit your 3-year-old in the front seat of your car without a booster seat, but the law does not. Should these airshows now come under that same category of unacceptable risk? That has still to be determined.

And what percentage of 3 year olds that die have cause of death listed as in airshow accident listed opposed to in vehicle accident?

Oh, come on, now you're just stretching. A control surface snapped off this plane like a dry twig because it's a 65-year-old aircraft retooled in someone's back yard using sandpaper and a putty knife and then flown the speed of a jumbo jet making hairpin turns 100 feet off the ground.

Now im stretching? A plane designed to fight IN A WAR has had something unexpectantly fall off it and something like metal fatigue on a ~60 year old design isnt probable or worth considering? [sarcasm on]no golly that couldnt be the case, becuase its at a low altitude and in a race there must have been g forces in excess of the design requirements[sarcasm off]

Thats it for me for this now, obviously you feel that with no investigation done that these events are horribly unsafe and its a miracle millions of people havent died and that the pilot exceeding the structural capacity of the plane, while i think that while this is a tragic event going to an airshow race carries a certain amount of risk and if you arent comfortable with it, then stay at home and watch it on tv.