P-51 Crashes at Reno Air Races, Spectator Casualties

[Thurian]

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

Good lad, it's the most sensible thing you've said so far

[Evan]

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]

Well, don't kid yourself. This was not a 60 year-old design for wartime dogfighting. This was a highly modified redesign for air-racing. Even the wings were modified. It was clearly an experimental aircraft. Apparently it had been mothballed for a very long time, so it's valid to suspect some sort of fatigue due to corrosion that went unnoticed, but it is also valid to question whether it had been exceeding its safe envelope at the time. Or whether it was ever really safe to begin with.

In my experience, Reno is a place to avoid altogether. Bad things just happen there. Air shows are probably the least dangerous thing about Reno.

[Gabriel]

I guess there must be a lot of other stupid people out there besides me.

Aw, come on. Of course there are lots and lots of stupid people out there (besides you or else).

[Gabriel]

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

Especially not in an aviation SAFETY forum.

[3WE]

Any explanations on why it didn't explode as a fire ball?...avgas is very explosive. I wonder if the pilot turned the master switch off, in order to prevent more casualties.

...Indeed, The lack of fire strongly supports this.

[3WE]

Ban all airshows!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FOF if partially correct!

Certainly, there are going to be lots of lawsuits, lots of scrutiny, and lots of emotion (that may take an unbalanced view of racing risks versus the risks and death toll from lots of other mundane things)

The legal/regulatory environment may have some far-reaching effects on this, other races, and other air-shows. (I think this has been said already)

[brianw999]

Life is a risk. Full stop. Here's some causes of death that I know of because I attended them. Should we ban all these activities ? ......

Cricket match. Batsman hits a "six" (over the boundary line without touching the ground). Ball hits woman spectator on the head and she dies. Ban cricket ?

Motor Sport. Track marshal hit by car while removing other broken down car. Track marshal killed.
Ban Motorsport ?

Horse riding. Horse throws rider, horse slips and falls on spectator. Spectator dies.
Ban horse riding ?

Athletics. Wind diverts a discus which hits a spectator. Spectator initially survives but dies later of surgical complications.
Ban Athletics ?

Motoring. Hell, I've lost count of the number of fatal road crashes I've been to, often involving innocent passers by.
Ban driving? Ban walking on the footpath? Ban pedestrian crossings?

Eating a beef sandwich while watching TV in bed. Casualty choked to death on said sandwich.
Ban Beef sandwiches? Ban watching TV? Ban going to bed?

Like I said...life is a risk in itself. Today I crossed the busy road outside my house and back again on foot. A total of 12 metres in the roadway. Today, doing that, I was vastly more likely to die than I will be on a total of 17 hours return flying to Barbados next month.
Tomorrow will be the same...and the next day...and the next day...and the next day...and the next day...and the next day...and the next day...and the next day...and the next day...and the next day !!

Should I be banned from crossing the road so that I can get my car out of the garage to go to work ?

Banning Air Racing won't make anyone any safer in this world, it will simply remove one microscopic chance of dying and give us the time to partake of another activity that could just as easily kill us......like eating a beef sandwich because we're bored now !!!

[3WE]

Banning Air Racing won't make anyone any safer in this world, it will simply remove one microscopic chance of dying and give us the time to partake of another activity that could just as easily kill us......like eating a beef sandwich because we're bored now !!!

Hang on- I think that we have to acknowledge that taking a really old plane and going really really fast is an increased risk. And data would suggest it is as there's been plenty of air-show/etc. crashes this year.

Safety buffers for spectators reduce that risk, but still with a plane going 700+ feet per second, there's an incremental risk that an out of control plane will "turn towards" the crowd and get there.

I agree that it needs to be put in context, but you also have to adjust your body count for the fact that zillions of people (just about everyone) eats sandwiches every few days, but a lot fewer folks watch air shows. There's an incremental increased risk to be at an airshow versus eating a sandwich.

I'm with you that that risk is reasonable, but I don't agree with dismissing it as non existent.

...Banning Air Racing won't make anyone any safer in this world...

Tell that to the 50 injured and 10 dead folks.

[Fear_of_Flying]

Life is a risk. Full stop. Here's some causes of death that I know of because I attended them. Should we ban all these activities ? ......

Cricket match. Batsman hits a "six" (over the boundary line without touching the ground). Ball hits woman spectator on the head and she dies. Ban cricket ?

Motor Sport. Track marshal hit by car while removing other broken down car. Track marshal killed.
Ban Motorsport ?

Horse riding. Horse throws rider, horse slips and falls on spectator. Spectator dies.
Ban horse riding ?

Athletics. Wind diverts a discus which hits a spectator. Spectator initially survives but dies later of surgical complications.
Ban Athletics ?

Motoring. Hell, I've lost count of the number of fatal road crashes I've been to, often involving innocent passers by.
Ban driving? Ban walking on the footpath? Ban pedestrian crossings?

Eating a beef sandwich while watching TV in bed. Casualty choked to death on said sandwich.
Ban Beef sandwiches? Ban watching TV? Ban going to bed?

Like I said...life is a risk in itself. Today I crossed the busy road outside my house and back again on foot. A total of 12 metres in the roadway. Today, doing that, I was vastly more likely to die than I will be on a total of 17 hours return flying to Barbados next month.
Tomorrow will be the same...and the next day...and the next day...and the next day...and the next day...and the next day...and the next day...and the next day...and the next day...and the next day !!

Should I be banned from crossing the road so that I can get my car out of the garage to go to work ?

Banning Air Racing won't make anyone any safer in this world, it will simply remove one microscopic chance of dying and give us the time to partake of another activity that could just as easily kill us......like eating a beef sandwich because we're bored now !!!

Again with this argument.

Here, I have some questions for you.

Your chances of being killed by a shark are 1 in 3,943,110. (Source: Discover Magazine, July 2011). The beach you want to visit this afternoon is closed because of shark sightings. Do you and your family go out for a little swim anyway, because the risk is statistically so low, and after all, no one has the right to tell you you can't swim in the ocean whenever you damn well please? As a follow-up, if you read about someone being attacked by a shark who was swimming at a closed beach, what would your reaction be?

Your chances of falling over a guard rail during a baseball game are astronomically low. Nevertheless, Shannon Stone fell to his death in Arlington reaching for a foul ball. Many people would claim that this was a highly foreseeable occurrence, given a man's center of gravity relative to the height of the rail and the fact that there had been two previous falls. As a result, Rangers Ballpark is being fitted with 42-inch rails from the previous 34-inch rails. 42-inch rails are the accepted standard in most non-sports public safety applications. Should they have bothered taking this measure?

Your chances of dying in an air transport accident are 1 in 7,032. (Higher than you thought I'll bet.) An Airbus 330 crashed over the Atlantic Ocean killing all 228 people on board. It was quickly determined that the problem originated with ineffective pitot tubes, and all aircraft using those tubes were refitted with new ones. Necessary move?

Is not the point of public safety that when we identify an avoidable risk, we take steps to improve it? If there are multiple car accidents at a particular intersection, is it not reasonable to install a stop light? Oh wait, of course it is, because lots of people die in car accidents (1 in 8 ). Mind you, one might ask the question what your chances are of dying at that one particular corner - something very close to zero.

With these air races, there are very few ways to improve public safety. Your chances of dying at an airshow are practically non-existent, but the chances that someone is going to die at an air race are close to 100%. So we've identified the risk, it is an avoidable risk, we know it will result in fatalities, and we do nothing about it. That is not the norm.

But let's extend this further. If in fact the format of air racing currently allowed in Nevada is truly okay, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed everywhere. Let's take the fatality rate in the last ten years at the Reno show, and put these events in every major city in North America, and Europe, too, if you like. Let's hold them several times a year, as the popularity of the sport grows. Would the risk still seem as negligible? People spend a lot more of their lives driving in cars than they do at airshows - proportionately, therefore, I wonder what the risks are between driving and attending airshows (one you spend a few hours of your life, the other up to a few hours every day.) According to the "logic" of many people on this thread, playing Russian roulette would be safer than driving your car to work, because a person's statistical chances of dying in a car accident in their lifetime are so many times greater.

[Evan]

How safe is it to stand near the end of a runway with a camera?

[Deadstick]

How safe is it to stand near the end of a runway with a camera?

Might depend on how tall you are and how close you stand to the end of said runway.

[B757300]

RENO, Nevada (AP) — A World War II-era plane had a video camera facing outward, and memory cards were found at the scene where it crashed near a grandstand in Reno. It raises the possibility of video of the crash that killed nine, including the pilot.

Investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board said Sunday the cards will be analyzed to see if there is any footage. Before it crashed, the aircraft also sent information to the racing team crew including oil pressure and temperature, altitude and velocity. That information could help investigators determine what caused the plane to crash.

Officials said they have heard reports the pilot sent a mayday call before crashing. They said so far there is no evidence of a call.

The plane hit the first few rows of VIP box seats like a missile Friday, causing a crater roughly 3 feet (1 meter) deep and 8 feet (2.4 meters) across with debris spread out over more than an acre.

Some members of the crowd have reported noticing a strange gurgling engine noise from above before the P-51 Mustang, dubbed "The Galloping Ghost," pitched violently upward, twirled and took an immediate nosedive into the crowd.

http://news.yahoo.com/ntsb-plane-crashed-air-race-had-camera-212527876.html

[guamainiac]

I used to take the tow tractor out to the threshold and park, just watching the dot of landing light get closer. Then the big roar with wheels over head.

[Fear_of_Flying]

The elephant in the room, of course, when it comes to any discussion of public safety, is the litigation that comes out of an incident like this. Not only will families of the deceased be suing, but so too will the many injured and maimed individuals. Who can blame them? You might not be able to keep your job after this. Maybe you'll have to retrain for another one. The post traumatic depression alone can be debilitating. A year from now, when everyone else has forgotten about the accident, you'll just be waking from a nightmare and beginning a long road to partial recovery.

Wait a minute. What am I talking about? These are all people of like mind, who "understood" and "accepted" the risk. If they could, they would be here themselves telling us that you can't legislate safety, or live in a plastic bubble, and that the drive to the airport was more dangerous than the air race. Surely these people, the same ones who assumed responsibility for their own safety, won't be suing the pants off the organizing body in Reno as though someone else were to blame...

The cliches sound great on a discussion forum, but the reality is a bit different.

[Simpleboy]

Only in America can you accept all liability for injury and death and then sue those when an accident occurs causing injury or death.