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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ;)

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/a...type=printable

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.

“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 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.

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

Miss Ashley II just sounds so sexy :)

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.

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.

Troll.

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._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.

Troll!
 

Troll!

Troll!