Quote:
Originally Posted by IamNotDavid
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamNotDavid
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.
|
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.