Mustang accident
 

Damn!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCNeP...layer_embedded


Condolences to all those involved :(

Heres link to story

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20107634.shtml

:(

I sure hope it wasn't the fact that he was 80. I feel for the families that just went to enjoy their day. Sometimes you just have to know when to stop and not just for your own good but for those around you.

have a look at the pi cin the article showing her upside down... 2 things that dont look right to me, one from the back of the radiator inlet, u can see a mist/smoke coming out, and 2nd the elevator trim tab looks to be gone.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/air-show...917-1kens.html

Here's the specs.

http://www2.leewardairranch.com/raci...ng-ghost-specs

Heavily Race Modified. 3800 HP Max Speed: ~550 mph at 5,000 ft

That was a beast!

Jimmy Leeward

https://www.facebook.com/JimmyLeeward

What's making me most sad is another thing. The victims and how they dealt with them.

It appears that in the US it's still practice to transport people into hospital instead of assessing their state on location and acting based on that. The article tells that story.
The article also says that the hospitals then didn't even have the capacity to treat the wounded.

Now, being German I remember the Ramstein incident where the exact same thing happened. The US mil just stuffed victims into transports and busses and drove off of the scene - the medics that arrived found chaos. Some of the transports didn't even find their way straight to the hospital (and we're talking about 3+ hours here) and if it was very unorganized and not balanced properly by the emergency services.

For such shows there should always be extra caution and they should also prepare for a number of injured way higher than 50 or 100. They should make sure that a number of on the scene medics and transports are available and also that that all hospitals in the area are prepared and notified.
To be honest this should go for all the bigger events as many of them have a tendecy to just go wrong.

RIP to the victims and good recovery to the injured.

Dam that's very sad

check out this pic

http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-201_162-...=page;previous

the pilot is not in view, and considering the steep angle at which it came down, it is likely he's leaning forward (which is kinda hard, cos you're strapped in), my very wild guess is that he wasn't conscious (maybe dead?) before he hit the ground. The plane has no visible structural damage, so a steep plunge like that is really unlikely unless it's actually pushed down :(

As much as I like vintage planes, I think that Reno races, other than ruining beautiful warbirds, is an unnecessary risk.

But the extended tailwheel makes me very curious....

yeah man, maybe he fainted/collapsed or whatever and hit the emergency gear release, considering he's pitching down the main gears are being kept in by the g force of the pitch.. it was just a few seconds.

but the main gear doesn't even look like it's cracked open, no g will stop the initial extention.

Dramatic NEW video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNtERSeYMUM&

It is clearly damaged. A trim tab is missing:

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Vy6...70670062b6.jpg

According to a local news website the initial scenario goes something like this:

1) Trim tab gets separated while doing quite a bit of airspeed (some say as much as 450 knots). This alone means you get a sudden pitch-up motion due to the sudden absence of any nose down trim to keep the plane going straight at such a high speed.

2) On top of that, the connecting rod/wire between the two tabs is broken and the second trim tab on the other elevator is stuck in nose up trim.

3) As a result of the rapid pitch up, the pilot pulls about 9-10Gs and passes out.

4) Pilot can't regain control in time due to GLOC (G-induced loss of consciousness).

The short report then goes on to mention that a very similar event occurred in these races with another modified mustang back in 1998. In that case the pilot was also subjected to about 10Gs but was far luckier, he just woke up at an altitude of 9000ft and proceeded to recover and land normally.

this was an horrific tragedy - very sad

Following both threads here - this one and the locked one it seems that people are struggling with the pilots age, some perceived lack of regulation or restriction on crowd proximity to the runway / apron area, and the Galloping Ghosts most recent, untested? modifications?...and lets not talk about flight certs - no one wanted to pull Bob Hoovers ticket either.

It looks like a perfect storm to me -

In most of these situations, its rarely one thing that causes the worst kinds of mayhem
Rather it is a stew...

Why does a 74 year old man need to fly a tight race track with several other planes at over 500mph in front of a grandstand full of women and children? because he can?

Why would he do so in an aircraft he knew had been modified, but was as yet uncertain of how exactly those airframe and power plant modifications might change the flight characteristics of his plane...not really shaking it down..but rather - taking it directly into a crowded race environment? because he "thought" he could handle it? that's Mavericky no?

When a pilot in one of these events feels a tug, or transient control response, or experiences an unusual vibration - or feels lightheaded or otherwise gets even a split second sensation that things aren't right - he is to pull up and away from the grandstand and get his plane out of the race area as quickly as possible. That is the procedure and the rule.

What if he felt the tug of the trim tab departing and pulled back on the stick to follow procedure...same time as the loss of trim also caused a pitch up moment thus causing an explosive positive G effect? - ANYONE would have blacked out instantly - that would explain the "empty cockpit" photos - but it does not excuse the pilot. He made the decision to race - he "wanted to see what the Ghost could do" if he pushed her.


People take risks all the time, its in our nature.
Some risk their money, some their jobs and some risk their lives....thats ok when they aren't betting with my money. This guy was gambling with other peoples lives, and I don't care what a great pilot he WAS or what he did for aviation back in the day...he took a huge risk and, well they're still counting the losses.

[QUOTE=heywooood;339370]t

ANYONE would have blacked out instantly - that would explain the "empty cockpit" photos - /QUOTE]


The pilot would have been in the photos slumped over...they think that the seat let go, slid back.

The races simply will go back to being private events closed to the public. I think they need too.

After this incident and our lawsuit happy public, I don't want them there.

The owners and pilots can enjoy their airplanes without them.

I think we should ban racing cars too. I mean 83 people died in one wreck at LeMans. Speed and power of cars has increased considerably since then yet the tracks are just the same.

Time bomb waiting to happen.....

http://www.ewilkins.com/wilko/lemans.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBe_5HuKgjg

I think your quite safe from an 'exploding F1 car' mate when spectating

yup, same goes with rally races.

I personally don't like what they do at Reno, but hey, it's their money and hobby, so let them be.
It's probably a matter of revenue anyway: F1 surely moves more money and sponsors, so "the show must go on" is an acceptable double standard.

But if every time we have an accident we have an accident we have to go through the "shall we ban it?", we're gonna end up in a state of control...

I blame the media, if a guy on the street just says 'hey, someoned died in x event', the response is 'oh dear thats sad......hey ho', but when the media get ahold of it and repeat it every 15 minutes with their classic 'spin' on things.......it's a wholr lot of a bigger deal.

Are you sitting down? I agree with you :)

There are such things as freak accidents, you can't legislate for freak accidents or you end up with freak legislation. People die in accidents all the time. If it's a numbers thing then there's 55 people who died in farming accidents this year in the UK, let's ban farming. 650 peope were killed by falling down stairs or steps. Ban them quick!

It was a horrible accident. The truth is that if you attend Reno anually, you're more likley to die in a car crash in the same year than at the event.

Ahh, no. The tabs are small surfaces on the trailing edge of the elevators and are adjusted by the pilot using the elevator trim wheel in the cockpit.....At least that's how the standard Stang is setup. I have no idea if the trim system in racing A/C is different.

Adjusting the tab down causes the elevator to pitch the nose up etc.

If the standard P-51 trim system is still in use, then.....

Only one cable controls both left and right elevator trims (using cable drums). Therefore, if one trim tab fails, the other would not stick up or down but would more than likely move back inline with the trailing edge of the elevator. Max up deflection is 10deg with down being 25deg.

Also looks as if 1/3 of the L/H trim tab is still there?

no offence meant, but your talking serious bullshit here...why should races be closed to public? everone goes there at his own risk...on every official FIA sancioned event you have signs with: "MOTORSPORT CAN BE DANGEROUS, ATTENDANCE AT YOUR OWN RISK" its even shown on your event ticket...same with airshows

safety measurements on todays airshows and motorsport events are at a very high level in the western world, but you cant avoid accidents by 100%... accidents happen and will happen, you only can reduce probabilty of people getting hurt or killed...

but saying these events should be banned generally is totally stupid...

let other have their hobby and passion...if u r afraid of getting hurt dont go there, as simple as that..

That LeMans crash was over 50 years ago. Many changes have been made to the cars and the tracks to make auto racing safer. However, it auto racing had the same safety record over the last 50 years as Reno, it would have been ended by now.

How are you calculating those odds? There are 2 pilot deaths for every 5 Reno shows. It was inevitable that an aircraft would eventually hit the crowd.

It's not the media's fault that 2 pilots die for every 5 Reno events.

If I went to Reno the odds of me dying there are less than they are for me dying in the same year from a car crash, statistically, as a spectator.

200,000 people attended reno over the week, 11 died.

That's 11 out of 200,000 or 1 death for every 18,200 people there, roughly. The fatalities for road accidents in the USA for 2009 was 11 for every 100,000 people in the population or 1 death for every 9,100 people. Nearly twice the odds.

That's how I calculated. You have to be at Reno to die at Reno, 199,989 people who were there didn't die there this year. You can't ignore them.

There certainly weren't 200,000 people there on the day of the accident. How can you tell that 200,000 attended? All I see is a memorial page when I go to the Reno air race website.

I'd like to see the attendance numbers at Reno when there is no air show. How many people actually show up just for air racing?

Actually, yes they do. They're called "spotters". I don't see the attraction, but they definitely exist.

The races started out as private events. Private individuals own those aircraft and race them as a very costly and expensive hobby. Nobody makes money at the races and allowing spectators is catering to the publics own personal enjoyment. The proceeds from the ticket sales offsets the expense of handling parking, a place for them sit, and the higher insurance rates the airport has to pay for having spectators.

Why should they be closed to the public? Life entails risk....

If an owner puts the fruits of labor at risk by sharing the a joy of aviation and passion for flight with the public, he runs the risk of somebody who climbs on the wing to look in the cockpit, slipping, falling, and suing him.

Now he isn't passing on anything, even for himself. He is paying lawyers and spending time in court.

No thanks....

Attendance for Reno over the week is around 200,000.. (Google reno air race attendance figures). I did the week figures because I couldn't get a daily figure and also because you were using the 'per-event' numbers. If you do it by day.

If you do it by day then obviously you'll get a different number.

I agree. That is the difference. There is no money to be made in air racing. Otherwise, it would be as big as other more lucrative "professional" sports.

Air racing is a great way to turn millions into thousands very quickly.

The only thing air racing does is spark peoples interest in aviation. Opening the races to the public allowed them to experience the power and speed of the pinnacle of WWII era piston engine aircraft development. It is a way to share a passion.

It will will just go back to being a private event without public access.

That includes the air show, which distorts the numbers.

200,000 x $10 General Admission = 2,000,000 USD

That is nothing when compared to the expenses of a single unlimited class racer.

Right up until the inevitable crash and cloud of black smoke. Then it does the opposite.

whats wrong with that? Honestly, I dont get your message.

What world are you living in? car races and airshows should become strictly private again? organised only as VIP club events and the public has to stay on the other side of the fence and watch from 1km distance?

come on...you must be joking

No, he's saying that Reno air racing will be strictly private. Air racing has nothing to do with air shows.

what about that? it started as an public event from day 1, which made it legendary ...

http://www.redbullairrace.com/cs/Sat...01238611393596

You misspelled "infamous".

The whole accident distorts the figures.

From a few sources it would appear that about 8,000 people were there on the day. If you take it as an isolated incident then obviously that's a much higher chance of being killed. But it only applies to that one race. If you take it as an isolated incident then the number of deaths per race would be 11, and it isn't.

If you get the total number of races, then the total number of people who attended these races and the total number of people killed you'd get the average chance of being killed at the race. I couldn't find total attendance to date, or how many races there have been since it started.

But, 30,000+ people were killed in the US by traffic related accidents.
If it's about unaccetable numbers of people dying then however you dress it up it's trivial when compared to other accidents.

If it's about people smashing vintage warplanes into the ground then why mention deaths. Racing any machine is, has always been, and will always be, dangerous to the participants and the spectators. But the number of people who die is miniscule as a percentage of the overall death total for a year.

Total number of deaths in the USA in 2009 - 2,423,712 - total killed by an out of control aircraft that was involved in a race - 11. (this is actually wrong because I'm using 2009 and nobody died as a result of watching an air race in 2009) But you see my point.

It was tragic but it was also a freak.

Aircraft crash regularly at Reno. As I have pointed out repeatedly, 2 pilots die for every 5 events. That one of them finally crashed into the crowd is not especially freakish considering how often they crash.

No, the first Reno air races were not open to the public. After Bill Stead died, they became public events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_Air_Races

http://www.larrylowe.com/content/air-racing-101

There is no money to be made racing airplanes. Owners only have the opportunity to spend a lot of their hard earned wealth doing it. Owners do it because they love it. Opening it to the public was just a way to share their passion for aviation. It will go back to being a private venture for those who have worked hard to own these aircraft and not something shared with those not fortunate enough to have them.

It is absolutely freakish considering it has happened only once in the entire history of the sport.

You seem to fail to grasp the amount of racing that goes on at Reno, It is hardly 1 event. Several days qualifying followed by a week of heat racing with several races per day, is as I have pointed out to you repeatedly, closely comparable to a whole season in F1 which has a higher death rate per year.

If people want to kill themselves having fun in their own machines, or want to get close enough to watch the spectacle therefore accepting the slight risk that an aircraft may crash on them then who are you or anyone to tell them that they shouldn't? Do you think people would be thankful for being deprived of their passion? I personally can think of worse ways to go.

It's racing - it's the very edge of performance - people die racing motorcycles all the time. Isle of Man TT kills at least one rider per year, That's 1 for each event.

I beg to differ, it's extremley freakish. It happened directly in front of the crowd, it happened at low level, it has never happened before. Explain to me how it's not a freak?

2 pilots per 5 events = 1 every 2 and a half years. More people die in the US from lightning strikes per year.

The fact that it has only happened once does not necessarily make it freakish. The sample size (47) isn't very big. I out of 47 really isn't that freakish, especially when you consider how often they crash.

And is isn't close to an F1 season at all. Each F1 event also has qualifying and practice. A Reno event is similar to a single F1 event, not an entire season. Comparing a single Reno event to an entire season of F1 is absurd.

Reno racers don't have the right to put people in danger just because they want an audience. Nor do I care what they think about being shut down.

Racing motorcycles is probably the only thing dumber than racing aircraft.

The sample size of "people in the US" is considerably larger than "Reno pilots". But thanks for proving my point about not understanding how dangerous it is.

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.

since 47 = events & years, once in 47 years is roughly 2% chance per year - thats pretty unlikely, if not freakish.

like i said David, however you refuse to try to counter this argument, 1 event in F1 is equal to roughly 6 hrs racing including practice and qualifying. 1 season in F1 is between 10-20 events (19 atm but this is at the high end if you look at history)

1 event at Reno = several days (for arguments sake lets say 4?) at least 6 hrs per day qualifying = minumum 24 hrs qualifying, which is what you'd get in a season in F1 if you had 12 races in a particular year

After the days qualifying a working week of races (5 days x 6hrs per day) = minumum 30 hrs racing which is equal to a 15 race season in F1.

However you look at it, you cannot say one event at Reno is equatable to one event in F1, but then I fully expect you to repeat '2 deaths per 5 events' as if every time someone got in a plane to race 2/5 times they would die as that's all you have come up with so far. Why not try to argue my point seeing as you wanted to play statistics? I have shown fairly that actually the racing at Reno to be comparably dangerous to F1 and others have added that some motorsports are certainly more dangerous (Isle of Mann TT)

:grin: yes well sorry David I didn't know they forced you to go and watch at gunpoint you have my sympathies. Read what you just wrote! People put themselves knowingly in danger of their own free will because they have accepted the risks and want to watch the racing, is that clear enough for you?

Here's a quote from one of the families of the victims : 'They would have wanted the races to continue...'

It isn't 2% per year, it's 2% over a span of about 4 days.

Sorry, but that is complete BS. They're not spending 6 hours per day racing at Reno. The crash was in the middle of a 6 lap race. The unlimited course is 8.4 miles. At 400mph the race should last 7.6 minutes. 6 hours of racing per day would be 47 races per day. I'm going to need more than your word that they're running 47 races each day at Reno.

Until then we're going to consider a Reno event to be roughly equivalent to an F1 event.

No one is accusing them of being smart.

The people who put themselves in danger at Reno have no idea what sort of risk they are taking. That has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt on this very thread.

Which happen once a year....so it's 2% a year

Oh the irony...

No, it's not per year. They're not at an air race for the other 361 days of the year, so that time is irrelevant. It's 2% over 4 days.

Bongo, I have a BA in mathematical sciences. What are your qualifications for discussing statistical analysis?

That happens a quite lot. Commercial, private, Military - Planes crash.


It is a freak accident, it's never happened before, 1/47 is misleading, it's too small a number. You could theoretically have 100 more Reno air races and it never happen again.

You really want to know how much of a freak then work it out. Assuming it was caused by the trim tab failing.
You'll need,
the probability of the same failiure happening again.
the probability of it happening at the same point in the race, (so you'll need to know what percentage of the race is run directly in front of the crowd)
the probability of the same result from the failiure (we already know that this happened to P-51 'voodoo chile' and the result was he went up to 9,000 feet, not into the crowd)
Then add all these together. That's the probability of it happening again.
It's an enormous number.
So again, how is it not a freak accident? None of the other deaths were caused by the same set of circumstances. You're assuming all deaths have the same cause, they don't.

The deaths are the result not the cause, you can't measure the result and then use it as an argument for cause.

Boy talk about a huge waste of money. I hope at least you attended a discount school. What did that math degree earn you vs. cost? Whats your degrees analysis say about that?

Sent from my SCH-R910 using Tapatalk

2% over a span of 4 days qualifying + 5 days heat racing per year

We? you mean you I guess? (and only you so far) So because you are unwilling to look at the actual numbers you go with a grotesquely simplified set that supports only your argument, and is no less BS than mine. I freely admit that using numbers in this way is at the least misleading and at the worst just plain false, that's been my point all along. How is looking at it your way more correct than mine?

So to continue to give you examples - lets factor in all the time starting up, time taking off, time landing, and the fact it is heats (many short races) + all the extra aerobatics and displays that go on in between for varying amounts of time, again landing/ taking off I could be wrong but to me it seems plausible that there are planes zipping around above people for at 4-6 hrs per day. We can keep going forever with the imaginary numbers David.

Again with the insults - towards the victims no less.
How do these people harm you in any way, shape or form? what is the cause of your malice about this?

So who has commented in this thread who has been to Reno and how have they shown you beyond reasonable doubt that they don't understand the risks?

all ill say is, if i had a beautiful mustang hurtling down towards me, sure id be scared about dying for a few whiole seconds... But i can bet you there'd be a massive hallilujah playing in the background somewhere... What an honour :P id die a happy man :)

This I find hard to believe since all you, me and anyone else has done on this thread is multiply numbers to get bigger numbers.

They don't crash as frequently as Reno planes, or for such a pointless reason.

But it didn't happen 100 times, it only happened 47 times, so that's the number we're going to use. 1/47 is not freakish in any way, nor is it misleading. It's reality.


I'm not assuming anything, I'm just counting the dead, and the cause is very well known. It's Reno.

Ok....but you relied on me to work out the stats you keep waving around ;)

Yeah that ^ :grin:

I know. And yet most of the pro-Reno people still aren't getting it.

No, I relied on you to count the dead bodies. That doesn't require a lot of analysis skills.

thats because multiplying numbers to get bigger numbers doesn't mean anything other than we all learned multiplication in primary school.

I'm talking about the people in here who would like to go to Reno. I doubt that actually going to Reno makes you any better at statistical analysis (not counting this year's graduating class).

Yes, it does mean something. That's why we learned how to multiply numbers.

You sound like you really care for these people....no wonder you dont wan't them to die

Most of us use it for practical purpouses....not just to make random numbers bigger for a hobby.

I actually went to one of the better schools. The Johns Hopkins University. My degree analysis says that I'll be retired at 50. It was money well spent.

They're only random if you don't understand statistical analysis.

well in that case say what you mean, because you said 'people who put themselves in danger at Reno' and again if you mean peple like me what have I demonstrated I don't understand and how?

I don't care about them. I don't know any of them. If I did know one of them, I'd feel bad for his/her family. But that does not change the fact that they died doing something really stupid.

They were having a lovely day out in the sunshine watching a sport they were obviously interested in....not sitting at the computer trolling on a forum....now that 'is' stupid.

Without a clue of the danger that they were in.

Because you say stupid things like "multiplying numbers doesn't mean anything".

question was 'what' not 'why' but then you have been evading the majority of my questions.

You have demonstrated that you don't know how dangerous air racing is. You say you understand, but when I put the Reno numbers in context you make it clear that you really don't understand.

8)

Great minds think alike....

I've seen tape of the crash from several angles. There was lots of screaming, but not a single hallelujah, and no one sounded happy.

Give it a rest guys. Everything to be said has already been said.

Pointless to you. Not to them, or they wouldn't have been there? Get it?
If it was pointless to them then they wouldn't be there, what would be the point? The point for them is to win.


Now you're just deflecting, you seem to have a grasp of numbers, so I'll ask again, what's the probability of this happening again? I'll give you a clue, it's not 1 in 47. Not even close.

You're clinging on to 1 in 47, it's irrelevant, it could be 1 in a million and it just happened to happen on the 47th time.
Should we ban all transatlantic passenger shipping, based on the fact that the Titanic sank on her maiden voyage? Hundreds of deaths for 1 event..


Why haven't we seen these P-51's falling out of the sky every 47th flight? According to you there's a 1 in 47 chance of this happening, it's wrong. You are manipulating the numbers. How many modified P-51's have crashed because of the same (non freak) problem?


When I 'just counted the dead' (ie:deaths per year) you said I shouldn't.
The cause was an accident.

Also your assumption that nobody knew that there was a posibility of danger being there is nonsense. It's a niche 'sport' and the people who were there knew what they were watching. To think otherwise is naive

And when I put them in context you deny my interpretation although by taking more data into account it is more precise than yours... and you say you are a statistician?

I understand that if I go to an air racing (substitute any extreme sport here) event I may be injured or killed, people near me may be injured or killed. If I decide to accept the risks, which are slight, this does not mean I do not understand them.

You continue to insult everyone involved with the Reno races and people like me who would not mind going once to see it, pilots, crews, and spectators and victims alike. What did any of these people do to make you want to deny them their passion? Thankfully no one gave you the power.

I will stop feeding the troll now.

Since 1 in 47 is the example we have seen, that's the example we're going to use. Trying to pretend it wasn't 1 in 47 is deflecting (and moronic).

It could be 1 in 1 billion, but it wasn't. It was 1 in 47. We can only go by the stats available, not by the ones you pull out of your butt.

No, but we can make sure there are enough life boats for everyone on board. If that isn't possible, then we find a different way to do things.

I didn't say anything about 51s falling out of the sky every 47th flight. I have no idea where you got that.

The assumption is based on what has been posted in here by pro-Reno people. I'm very confident that it is accurate.

Let me know when you find a source that says there are 46 races at Reno every day. Until then you're not using more precise data than mine, you're pulling data out of your butt.

When will this debate find a middle ground? Both standpoints are correct.

Reno races NEED more safety measures, otherwise the series needs to lay out different strategic goals unless it's safe enough for both pilots AND spectators.

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.

If the reno races association doesn't learn from this then this is seriously BAD. However, just banning the races without evaluating what went wrong and how to avoid it is also bad.


Just agree that you BOTH have a point. Because you do.

Seriously :!:

There are 3 problems finding middle ground.

1. The Reno people think the event is safe enough.
2. The anti-Reno people believe there is no way to make it safer and maintain anything close to the current format.
3. The Reno people like the current format and think the event is safe enough.

BTW, the Red Bull people stopped that race for safety reasons before there was a single fatality, and Red Bull racing appeared to be a lot safer than Reno. That is the middle ground. They should stop the race.