Having read all of your tripe through this thread and all your many other threads I suspect as David Hayward, it is clear you are a troll and trolling is your hobby. You are a disgusting animal and nothing is lower than your wonderful self. Satan would be proud.

Since when did "posting stats which back up my views" become trolling?

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/...-crash-new.kgw

Not sure if this has been posted before... very sad moment in reno air race's history.

P.S. From what I have read only 29 people have died at reno... where do you get your facts from David.... Judging from your posts if I were to guess, I would say it had to be from your rear end.

You're close. The 20 pilot deaths in 47 years number comes from Bongodriver. I suspect the 29 deaths includes the recent crash.

You could well be right, but nobody is marched at gun point and told to race or else, it's a personal choice. If they get killed then it's because of a decision they made.


It's less dangerous than farming. More farmers die in the US per year than race pilots.

What about the 30,000+ per year that die in road accidents? Do we ban all cars because somebody might have an accident?

So, what else that's dangerous should we ban that could accidentley kill you?

Ban peanuts, they are pretty dangerous and kill lots of people.

If they want to die that's their problem. But they also want to pretend that it's good for aviation, and that is just absurd. People see the deaths at motorcycle races and think they're morons. It's very likely they think the same about Reno.

It's only less dangerous than farming if there are as many Reno pilots as there are farmers. You don't determine risk by the total numbers, you determine risk by the ratio of deaths to participants.

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.

There are several reasons why Red Bull races are safer.

1. Red Bull has terminated the series.
2. only 1 aircraft on the course at a time
3. aircraft are slower
4. aircraft are more reliable

Good luck making the death races safer! I don't see it happening.

To be honest I don't like what they do at Reno. It's like muscle cars but with wings. It's neither good or bad for aviation, it's just guys racing planes. (I've never really seen the appeal of air races)

But it's what the pilots want to do. Nobody was forced to attend or to participate.


Fair point, I was using deaths per year and shouldn't of said that farming was more dangerous. Farming just kills more people.

I stand by the point that legislating for a freak accident results in freak legislation though.

I don't understand where you're coming from though. Is it the deaths of the pilots that makes you want it stopped, or spectators, or the aircraft?
Because out of the 3 the only one who didn't consent to being there was the plane. You can't just ban racing because it's dangerous, because the danger is part of the appeal to participants and spectators alike.

It was just very very unlucky. Unlucky that it happened at the exact point that it did, if it had happened on any other part of the course then we'd just be talking about another P-51 crash and another dead racer.

No, video of aircraft crashing into the ground is definitely bad. There is no way to paint a smiley face on that pig.

You can stand by it all you want, but you're still wrong. 1/47 is not a "freak" event.