Big Crash at Reno
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and reconciling the numbers will not reverse the tragedy.
Somehow I don't see that connection. Regardless of whether the numbers were wrong out of carelessness or outright lies.
The only conceivable way I can see that that claim would be true, is if the pilot told outright lies because if he told the truth, he would not meet the acceptance criteria set by the Reno organization. But I have not seen a suggestion anywhere that that would be the case.
I don't think one needs any expertise in air accident investigation - nor a desire to be an investigator neither pro or am to be able to read the published material and have a view.
And in situations like that, the one making the boldest claim is the one that will receive the most flak.
Backpacker - I completely agree with all of that.
I don't think the hours or age made any difference to the accident. What I draw from the deception or casual attitude to these forms is that it's likely it carried to the flight testing given it's largely self certificated.
Without documents to suggest otherwise I don't think that can be ignored.
There is always a fondness for the maverick, devil may care styled hero. At some point it just becomes reckless. It takes no skill to be reckless.
I don't think the hours or age made any difference to the accident. What I draw from the deception or casual attitude to these forms is that it's likely it carried to the flight testing given it's largely self certificated.
Without documents to suggest otherwise I don't think that can be ignored.
There is always a fondness for the maverick, devil may care styled hero. At some point it just becomes reckless. It takes no skill to be reckless.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pittsextra
Factual medical information:-
The following information was obtained from the
FAA Forensic Toxicology Laboratory at CAMI:
"Ethanol, 58 mg/dL."
"FAR Section 91.17 (a) prohibits any person from acting or attempting to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft while having 0.040 g/dL (40.0 mg/dL) or more alcohol in the blood. "
"Ethanol and methanol were however identified in muscle on postmortem toxicology. "
The following information was obtained from the
FAA Forensic Toxicology Laboratory at CAMI:
"Ethanol, 58 mg/dL."
"FAR Section 91.17 (a) prohibits any person from acting or attempting to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft while having 0.040 g/dL (40.0 mg/dL) or more alcohol in the blood. "
"Ethanol and methanol were however identified in muscle on postmortem toxicology. "
It so happens, that carbohydrates decompose to form alcohols among other things.
Judging from the violence of the impact, it is likely that several hours lapsed before any tissue from the pilot was identified and collected. What measures were then taken to preserve this tissue?
A clue that this alcohol reading is decomposition related is that methanol was detected. You had better not be drinking that stuff unless you want to go blind!
It is a poison.
Without formal interpretation of the results, I will have to assume that the ethanol is also resulted from decomposition.
Take a look at this link for more information: Fermentation in Blood Samples Produce....Alcohol - Arizona DUI Laws Attorney Lawyer Phoenix DUI Drunk Driving Defense Extreme Penalties In Scottsdale
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Medical Report points out the coolant had methanol and the crash site itself contained ethanol prior the crash:
as well as:
Given the methanol level established was way above the lethal level, I would not read too much into the Toxicology Analysis, unless you really know what you are talking about (which I do not) 
NoD
The fuel used by the accident aircraft did not contain ethanol or methanol. The accident aircraft had a modified “boil‐off” cooling system that contained methanol. There were alcohol (i.e., ethanol) containing beverages in the box seat area of the viewing stands where the accident aircraft impacted the ground.
Methanol is produced postmortem, along with ethanol and other alcohols, in the putrefaction process. Methanol, commonly known as wood alcohol, is metabolized to formaldehyde. If ingested, the toxic and lethal levels of methanol are 10 mg/ml and 150 mg/ml, respectively.
NoD
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pitssextra:
Your genuflection to concluding he's a pathological liar is pathetic.
Please share with us what the intent would be for an air racer with 35 years experience at Reno to lie about trivial matters such as age. You challenge the integrity of an extremely well-known and highly regarded pilot with an exceptional catalogue of experience that is respected by the few who have done similarly.
You haven't even given the available documents a proper analysis!
Some of the presented forms contain several handwriting styles. Some are typed and hand signed. Who filled out which part of each form, where and when? Was it all done at the same moment?
On the RARA Pilot Data forms, it could easily be concluded that a pre-prepared form was signed by the pilot at an event registration table -- and at his last event he even corrected the age from 59 to 74!
This is air racing, not line ops. Have a go asking Jenson Button how many races he's started in his career, let alone number of hours.
Racing is dangerous sport -- air, water or ground -- and risk of injury or death to participants and spectators cannot be eliminated. If it scares you, don't attend.
He did lie about his age...
He did lie about his flight experience.
Its my opinion that he lied about the level of testing...
Please share with us what the intent would be for an air racer with 35 years experience at Reno to lie about trivial matters such as age. You challenge the integrity of an extremely well-known and highly regarded pilot with an exceptional catalogue of experience that is respected by the few who have done similarly.
You haven't even given the available documents a proper analysis!
Some of the presented forms contain several handwriting styles. Some are typed and hand signed. Who filled out which part of each form, where and when? Was it all done at the same moment?
On the RARA Pilot Data forms, it could easily be concluded that a pre-prepared form was signed by the pilot at an event registration table -- and at his last event he even corrected the age from 59 to 74!
This is air racing, not line ops. Have a go asking Jenson Button how many races he's started in his career, let alone number of hours.
Racing is dangerous sport -- air, water or ground -- and risk of injury or death to participants and spectators cannot be eliminated. If it scares you, don't attend.
Mach :
I have no idea why he lied about his age, maybe he was just plain old self conscious about his age and used hair dye too??! How do I know ! But you can clearly see that he did. Pre-filled, handwritten, typed - he signed the form.
His integrity is challenged because regardless of his age the hours of experience claimed are just utter nonsense. If you look at the FAA forms form Ghost you might even conclude that this airframe would struggle to see a hundred hours since 1983 - yet on several occasions Leeward was claiming thousands.
Regarded maybe - an exceptional catalogue of experience you'd need to refer the reader.
As for motor racing drivers - a parallel which keeps being made. In that sport you are unable to progress from junior racing without providing results at each stage. Its all documented and retained by the national governing body or in the case of F1 the FIA.
Many make the point that experience counted in hours counts for jack - well the governing bodies around the world don't agree, they require documentation to stop loud people with big cheques telling the world they have 50000 hours of experience in every type available 5 minutes before they kill themselves... For example....
I have no idea why he lied about his age, maybe he was just plain old self conscious about his age and used hair dye too??! How do I know ! But you can clearly see that he did. Pre-filled, handwritten, typed - he signed the form.
His integrity is challenged because regardless of his age the hours of experience claimed are just utter nonsense. If you look at the FAA forms form Ghost you might even conclude that this airframe would struggle to see a hundred hours since 1983 - yet on several occasions Leeward was claiming thousands.
Regarded maybe - an exceptional catalogue of experience you'd need to refer the reader.
As for motor racing drivers - a parallel which keeps being made. In that sport you are unable to progress from junior racing without providing results at each stage. Its all documented and retained by the national governing body or in the case of F1 the FIA.
Many make the point that experience counted in hours counts for jack - well the governing bodies around the world don't agree, they require documentation to stop loud people with big cheques telling the world they have 50000 hours of experience in every type available 5 minutes before they kill themselves... For example....
I dont know what your beef is Pitts but your accusations seem meritless and akward.
It's not that hard to get addional info on Leeward:
EAA Sport Aviation - May 2011
The man has flown 150 races in the Unlimited Class since 1976.
Nothing outrageous about the claim of 2500 hrs in make and model.
Galloping Ghost has been through several name changes and configuration changes during it's life.
It's not that hard to get addional info on Leeward:
EAA Sport Aviation - May 2011
The man has flown 150 races in the Unlimited Class since 1976.
Nothing outrageous about the claim of 2500 hrs in make and model.
Galloping Ghost has been through several name changes and configuration changes during it's life.
Meritless accusations...? Really? Well this from the NTSB:-
Board member Robert L. Sumwalt criticized Leeward and his team for failure to adequately analyze, document, and test the modifications they made to squeeze more speed from the Galloping Ghost.
“The way I look at it quite honestly, is, if you’re flying, if you’re modifying an airplane without fully understanding how those modifications can affect aerodynamics, then you’re basically just playing Russian roulette with an aircraft,” Sumwalt said. “As the chairman said, unlike Russian roulette, in this case when you go out and you do those things, you not only endanger your own life, but you potentially endanger the lives of others, and that is what happened in this particular case.”
Board member Robert L. Sumwalt criticized Leeward and his team for failure to adequately analyze, document, and test the modifications they made to squeeze more speed from the Galloping Ghost.
“The way I look at it quite honestly, is, if you’re flying, if you’re modifying an airplane without fully understanding how those modifications can affect aerodynamics, then you’re basically just playing Russian roulette with an aircraft,” Sumwalt said. “As the chairman said, unlike Russian roulette, in this case when you go out and you do those things, you not only endanger your own life, but you potentially endanger the lives of others, and that is what happened in this particular case.”
Life's too short for ironing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Scotland, & Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pitts,
So what's your point with all your posts? We all know the accident happened, too many people were maimed & killed, the NTSB facts are there for all to see in the documentation, regarding Jimmy, RARA, FAA, the course layout etc, etc.
You seem to be picking out only the negatives about Jimmy that contributed towards the accident. We can all read those facts too. Obviously without the aircraft going out of control, this accident would not have happened, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that there were other contributing factors towards so many being killed & injured
So is there a reason for posting just the negatives about Jimmy & ignoring any other factors?
So what's your point with all your posts? We all know the accident happened, too many people were maimed & killed, the NTSB facts are there for all to see in the documentation, regarding Jimmy, RARA, FAA, the course layout etc, etc.
You seem to be picking out only the negatives about Jimmy that contributed towards the accident. We can all read those facts too. Obviously without the aircraft going out of control, this accident would not have happened, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that there were other contributing factors towards so many being killed & injured
So is there a reason for posting just the negatives about Jimmy & ignoring any other factors?
Last edited by fernytickles; 28th Aug 2012 at 02:17.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Board member Robert L. Sumwalt criticized Leeward and his team for failure to adequately analyze, document, and test the modifications they made to squeeze more speed from the Galloping Ghost.
“The way I look at it quite honestly, is, if you’re flying, if you’re modifying an airplane without fully understanding how those modifications can affect aerodynamics, then you’re basically just playing Russian roulette with an aircraft,” Sumwalt said. “As the chairman said, unlike Russian roulette, in this case when you go out and you do those things, you not only endanger your own life, but you potentially endanger the lives of others, and that is what happened in this particular case.”
“The way I look at it quite honestly, is, if you’re flying, if you’re modifying an airplane without fully understanding how those modifications can affect aerodynamics, then you’re basically just playing Russian roulette with an aircraft,” Sumwalt said. “As the chairman said, unlike Russian roulette, in this case when you go out and you do those things, you not only endanger your own life, but you potentially endanger the lives of others, and that is what happened in this particular case.”
Fatalities suffered by the public at airshows occur from time to time. The organisers may do their very best, and often it's only luck at times that fatalities do not occur. Count spectator deaths/injuries here List of air show accidents and incidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Code of Federal Regulations
Part 21 CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS, ARTICLES, AND PARTS
Subpart H—Airworthiness Certificates
§ 21.191 Experimental certificates.
Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:
(a) Research and development. Testing new aircraft design concepts, new aircraft equipment, new aircraft installations, new aircraft operating techniques, or new uses for aircraft.
(b) Showing compliance with regulations. Conducting flight tests and other operations to show compliance with the airworthiness regulations including flights to show compliance for issuance of type and supplemental type certificates, flights to substantiate major design changes, and flights to show compliance with the function and reliability requirements of the regulations.
(c) Crew training. Training of the applicant's flight crews.
(d) Exhibition. Exhibiting the aircraft's flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics at air shows, motion picture, television, and similar productions, and the maintenance of exhibition flight proficiency, including (for persons exhibiting aircraft) flying to and from such air shows and productions.
(e) Air racing. Participating in air races, including (for such participants) practicing for such air races and flying to and from racing events.
§ 21.193
Experimental certificates: general.
An applicant for an experimental certificate must submit the following information:
(a) A statement, in a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator setting forth the purpose for which the aircraft is to be used.
(b) Enough data (such as photographs) to identify the aircraft.
(c) Upon inspection of the aircraft, any pertinent information found necessary by the Administrator to safeguard the general public.
(d) In the case of an aircraft to be used for experimental purposes--
(1) The purpose of the experiment;
(2) The estimated time or number of flights required for the experiment;
(3) The areas over which the experiment will be conducted; and
(4) Except for aircraft converted from a previously certificated type without appreciable change in the external configuration, three-view drawings or three-view dimensioned photographs of the aircraft.
Part 21 CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS, ARTICLES, AND PARTS
Subpart H—Airworthiness Certificates
§ 21.191 Experimental certificates.
Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:
(a) Research and development. Testing new aircraft design concepts, new aircraft equipment, new aircraft installations, new aircraft operating techniques, or new uses for aircraft.
(b) Showing compliance with regulations. Conducting flight tests and other operations to show compliance with the airworthiness regulations including flights to show compliance for issuance of type and supplemental type certificates, flights to substantiate major design changes, and flights to show compliance with the function and reliability requirements of the regulations.
(c) Crew training. Training of the applicant's flight crews.
(d) Exhibition. Exhibiting the aircraft's flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics at air shows, motion picture, television, and similar productions, and the maintenance of exhibition flight proficiency, including (for persons exhibiting aircraft) flying to and from such air shows and productions.
(e) Air racing. Participating in air races, including (for such participants) practicing for such air races and flying to and from racing events.
§ 21.193
Experimental certificates: general.
An applicant for an experimental certificate must submit the following information:
(a) A statement, in a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator setting forth the purpose for which the aircraft is to be used.
(b) Enough data (such as photographs) to identify the aircraft.
(c) Upon inspection of the aircraft, any pertinent information found necessary by the Administrator to safeguard the general public.
(d) In the case of an aircraft to be used for experimental purposes--
(1) The purpose of the experiment;
(2) The estimated time or number of flights required for the experiment;
(3) The areas over which the experiment will be conducted; and
(4) Except for aircraft converted from a previously certificated type without appreciable change in the external configuration, three-view drawings or three-view dimensioned photographs of the aircraft.
The board member is merely saying what the Experimental Category is all about. In the land of the free aviators have the ability to experiment, anybody can design and build an aircraft. The FAA don't issue an Experimental Certificate for an aircraft lightly. They recognise because they are not necessarily designed/built/tested by professionals they don't have the level of safety that comes with a certificated aircraft, and hence they are operated on a "your risk" basis.
http://www.rgj.com/article/20120827/...modifications-
Pitts,
So what's your point with all your posts? We all know the accident happened, too many people were maimed & killed, the NTSB facts are there for all to see in the documentation, regarding Jimmy, RARA, FAA, the course layout etc, etc.
You seem to be picking out only the negatives about Jimmy that contributed towards the accident. We can all read those facts too.
So is there a reason for posting just the negatives about Jimmy & ignoring any other factors?
So what's your point with all your posts? We all know the accident happened, too many people were maimed & killed, the NTSB facts are there for all to see in the documentation, regarding Jimmy, RARA, FAA, the course layout etc, etc.
You seem to be picking out only the negatives about Jimmy that contributed towards the accident. We can all read those facts too.
So is there a reason for posting just the negatives about Jimmy & ignoring any other factors?
Take a look at the maintenance log and compare that with the table called Flight and data log (appendix B) under the data recorders section.
The pilot declares in the maintenance log in August 2009 that all flight testing has been done and yet there is just 19 minutes of flight data. This guy that seems to have many fans was, to use the venacular, just taking the p155.
Life's too short for ironing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Scotland, & Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, so what is your point? If you are so sure of this, why not write to the FAA, the NTSB & RARA? Posting it on here is about as effective to the future of air racing safety as a chocolate fire guard.
Last edited by fernytickles; 28th Aug 2012 at 11:23.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its just idle banter and chit chat with other pilots
Interesting, though, what that piece says about modifications, maintenance and race speeds but it's not even as if the Ghost was the fastest ever P51 Reno unlimited. I think that honour goes to Strega, but maybe they're more conscientious or professional or whatever you want to call it.
Despite my earlier statement I'm starting to lean in the direction of Pittsextra.
In our society there is a strong tendency turn a blind eye to the "folk-hero".
We are as a society very willing to come up with all sorts of excuses if one of our hero's falls of his pedestal.
I am talking about soccer players, rugby players, boxers, kick-boxers, golfers and other celebrities in general when they are caught :
In his quest to beat Strega it seems Mr Leeward took a step too far.
Being the self made man and (NASCAR like) hero that he was he got away with it till this fatal event.
The NTSB report is clear.
*** Warning *** OFF topic ***
And am I the only one to think the chair(wo)man of the NTSB is quite the looker:
In our society there is a strong tendency turn a blind eye to the "folk-hero".
We are as a society very willing to come up with all sorts of excuses if one of our hero's falls of his pedestal.
I am talking about soccer players, rugby players, boxers, kick-boxers, golfers and other celebrities in general when they are caught :
- drinking and driving
- involved with organized crime
- domestice violence
- caught cheating
In his quest to beat Strega it seems Mr Leeward took a step too far.
Being the self made man and (NASCAR like) hero that he was he got away with it till this fatal event.
The NTSB report is clear.
In addition, the “filler material” used on both trim tabs increased their weight and changed their center of gravity, they said. That made the aircraft more sensitive to pitch control.
“It is likely that, had engineering evaluations and diligent flight testing for the modifications been performed, many of the airplane’s undesirable structural and control characteristics could have been identified and corrected,” the NTSB said.
“It is likely that, had engineering evaluations and diligent flight testing for the modifications been performed, many of the airplane’s undesirable structural and control characteristics could have been identified and corrected,” the NTSB said.
And am I the only one to think the chair(wo)man of the NTSB is quite the looker:
Last edited by B2N2; 30th Aug 2012 at 14:25.
Moderator
hero that he was he got away with it
Focusing on the possible considerations of speed and flutter (of the elevator trim tab) as they related to this accident.... Before I can state that a flight test and the design being tested are satisfactory for certification, and thus "public" operation, I have to satisfactorily flight test to 110% of the certified limiting speed.
Do the authorities of these air racing events require evidence of satisfactory flight test to even 100% of the speed to be flown in the race? I know that it tends to defeat the purpose of the race, but this public operation of the aircraft, and the public should have some expectation of safety. Alternatively the "testing" phase of the demonstration of the capability of the aircraft might be better done a safe distance from the public. Perhaps it is now, I have know knowledge of the Reno air races.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cape Town
Age: 70
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, so what is your point? If you are so sure of this, why not write to the FAA, the NTSB & RARA? Posting it on here is about as effective to the future of air racing safety as a chocolate fire guard.
Last edited by fernytickles; 28th Aug 2012 at 13:23.
Last edited by fernytickles; 28th Aug 2012 at 13:23.
Incidently, someone from this forum did and was made part of the investigation.
Source: Galloping Ghost
August 28, 2012
Galloping Ghost: NTSB Nails It
By Paul Bertorelli
I took an hour and a half to attend Monday's NTSB hearing on the Reno Galloping Ghost accident. To say it was an eye opener is an understatement. It's not much of an exaggeration, in my estimation, to assert that before it even took off, Galloping Ghost was a crater looking for a grid reference. The NTSB found that it was flying at the very edge of its structural and performance envelope, if not well beyond it.
How could this have happened? Perhaps the easiest way to answer that is to suggest that it occurred because of an uncertain confluence of an owner and team willing to press the limits, a racing association with weak technical oversight and a regulatory agency—the FAA—that simply wasn't in the loop. The NTSB found that the aircraft was significantly modified, to include the removal of the belly scoop, the addition of a new canopy, structural mods to the fuselage and tail and a boil-off unit that's popular among Reno races as a supplemental cooling system.
These are hardly uncommon mods for this class of airplane, but the FAA had no records on any of this except the boiler. The owners hadn't reported the rest. Given that Reno racers are experimental, I'm not sure they're required to. Yet had they done so, opined the board, the agency would likely have demanded more flight trials to prove the mods. Would a structures guy have seen serious issues with the scoop removal just by inspecting it? Maybe. The NTSB said that much of the data it reviewed was unique to Galloping Ghost, even though other unlimited Reno racers are similarly modified.
Galloping Ghost was clearly built to win. It was flying faster than it ever had by at least 35 knots and the engine was delivering more power than was ever asked of it. It rounded its last turn at more than 400 knots, rolled sharply left, then pitched up violently into a 17-G uncommanded pull that the NTSB said no human could tolerate. Yet even before the moment the accident scenario began, there was strong evidence that the airplane was coming apart. Like most aviation events, Reno is widely filmed and the NTSB had an unusual amount of good imagery to investigate this accident. It did a superb job of analyzing it.
In lap two of the accident race, the imagery showed deformation in the aircraft's skin, indicative of overloading, and a visible crack or gap opened in the canopy. Wouldn't the latter have been evident to the pilot? The conclusion seems to be that it should have been. Why it wasn't is a mystery.
On the accident lap, the final failure mechanism was loose or fatigued screws holding the left trim tab in place. (The Mustang has a pair of trim tabs, for redundancy, but the right one on Galloping Ghost was fixed in place.) The investigation revealed that self-locking nuts were re-used on the left tab and old paint on the fasteners suggested they were last installed 26 years ago. The screws were incapable of being properly torqued.
In the final turn, something excited flutter in the loose tab. Was it wake turbulence from the proceeding airplane or sympathetic vibration with a structure that might have already been buzzing? We may never know. But we know the result. Flutter is as relentless and unforgiving a phenomenon as anything in aviation and it can destroy robust structures in mere seconds. In Galloping Ghost, the fluttering tab failed the trim actuator rod, rendering the trim useless. It didn't help that the P-51's elevator bob weights and balance had been significantly modified. Jimmy Leeward was doomed the instant the tab buzzed. It didn't actually depart the elevator until well into the uncommanded pitch up.
In my view, as surely as the technical explanation for this accident was a structural failure, the reason for it was a cultural failure. In her opening remarks, NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman showed an acute understanding of why Reno pilots are willing to assume risk, but she also observed that exposing spectators to risk is quite another thing and an out-of-control airplane is a risk to everyone.
As pilots, we tend to dismiss the concerns of non-aviators as the paranoia of people who live uninspired lives in a cocoon, unwilling or unable reach out for the thrill that animates the rest of us. But there's a degree of cynicism in that dismissiveness and it can get people killed. In my view, the Galloping Ghost accident doesn't appear to be the result of willful ignorance, rather just plain ignorance. It also seems reasonable to assume, based on the NTSB's findings, that it could have been avoided if the owners had merely examined the risks critically and conducted more flight testing. As the NTSB suggested, the Reno Racing Air Racing Association needs better technical oversight of aircraft flying there and it has agreed to do that.
A word here about the NTSB, which a friend of mine once described as "government done right." I'm not easily wowed, but watching this hearing, I couldn't help but be impressed with the thoroughness and speed of the NTSB's probe into this accident. Moreover, the board members questioning of the investigators showed deep technical grasp of the issues. They asked what I'd ask. And then some. Deborah Hersman's queries and closing remarks were respectful and set just the right tone; firm, no-nonsense, but not overbearing. Positive changes have already come in the wake of this accident. Let's hope they stick.
A video of the full hearing will be available on the NTSB Web site in a few days. It's worth the time to watch. I'll add a link when it's available.
Galloping Ghost: NTSB Nails It
By Paul Bertorelli
I took an hour and a half to attend Monday's NTSB hearing on the Reno Galloping Ghost accident. To say it was an eye opener is an understatement. It's not much of an exaggeration, in my estimation, to assert that before it even took off, Galloping Ghost was a crater looking for a grid reference. The NTSB found that it was flying at the very edge of its structural and performance envelope, if not well beyond it.
How could this have happened? Perhaps the easiest way to answer that is to suggest that it occurred because of an uncertain confluence of an owner and team willing to press the limits, a racing association with weak technical oversight and a regulatory agency—the FAA—that simply wasn't in the loop. The NTSB found that the aircraft was significantly modified, to include the removal of the belly scoop, the addition of a new canopy, structural mods to the fuselage and tail and a boil-off unit that's popular among Reno races as a supplemental cooling system.
These are hardly uncommon mods for this class of airplane, but the FAA had no records on any of this except the boiler. The owners hadn't reported the rest. Given that Reno racers are experimental, I'm not sure they're required to. Yet had they done so, opined the board, the agency would likely have demanded more flight trials to prove the mods. Would a structures guy have seen serious issues with the scoop removal just by inspecting it? Maybe. The NTSB said that much of the data it reviewed was unique to Galloping Ghost, even though other unlimited Reno racers are similarly modified.
Galloping Ghost was clearly built to win. It was flying faster than it ever had by at least 35 knots and the engine was delivering more power than was ever asked of it. It rounded its last turn at more than 400 knots, rolled sharply left, then pitched up violently into a 17-G uncommanded pull that the NTSB said no human could tolerate. Yet even before the moment the accident scenario began, there was strong evidence that the airplane was coming apart. Like most aviation events, Reno is widely filmed and the NTSB had an unusual amount of good imagery to investigate this accident. It did a superb job of analyzing it.
In lap two of the accident race, the imagery showed deformation in the aircraft's skin, indicative of overloading, and a visible crack or gap opened in the canopy. Wouldn't the latter have been evident to the pilot? The conclusion seems to be that it should have been. Why it wasn't is a mystery.
On the accident lap, the final failure mechanism was loose or fatigued screws holding the left trim tab in place. (The Mustang has a pair of trim tabs, for redundancy, but the right one on Galloping Ghost was fixed in place.) The investigation revealed that self-locking nuts were re-used on the left tab and old paint on the fasteners suggested they were last installed 26 years ago. The screws were incapable of being properly torqued.
In the final turn, something excited flutter in the loose tab. Was it wake turbulence from the proceeding airplane or sympathetic vibration with a structure that might have already been buzzing? We may never know. But we know the result. Flutter is as relentless and unforgiving a phenomenon as anything in aviation and it can destroy robust structures in mere seconds. In Galloping Ghost, the fluttering tab failed the trim actuator rod, rendering the trim useless. It didn't help that the P-51's elevator bob weights and balance had been significantly modified. Jimmy Leeward was doomed the instant the tab buzzed. It didn't actually depart the elevator until well into the uncommanded pitch up.
In my view, as surely as the technical explanation for this accident was a structural failure, the reason for it was a cultural failure. In her opening remarks, NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman showed an acute understanding of why Reno pilots are willing to assume risk, but she also observed that exposing spectators to risk is quite another thing and an out-of-control airplane is a risk to everyone.
As pilots, we tend to dismiss the concerns of non-aviators as the paranoia of people who live uninspired lives in a cocoon, unwilling or unable reach out for the thrill that animates the rest of us. But there's a degree of cynicism in that dismissiveness and it can get people killed. In my view, the Galloping Ghost accident doesn't appear to be the result of willful ignorance, rather just plain ignorance. It also seems reasonable to assume, based on the NTSB's findings, that it could have been avoided if the owners had merely examined the risks critically and conducted more flight testing. As the NTSB suggested, the Reno Racing Air Racing Association needs better technical oversight of aircraft flying there and it has agreed to do that.
A word here about the NTSB, which a friend of mine once described as "government done right." I'm not easily wowed, but watching this hearing, I couldn't help but be impressed with the thoroughness and speed of the NTSB's probe into this accident. Moreover, the board members questioning of the investigators showed deep technical grasp of the issues. They asked what I'd ask. And then some. Deborah Hersman's queries and closing remarks were respectful and set just the right tone; firm, no-nonsense, but not overbearing. Positive changes have already come in the wake of this accident. Let's hope they stick.
A video of the full hearing will be available on the NTSB Web site in a few days. It's worth the time to watch. I'll add a link when it's available.
Last edited by B2N2; 31st Aug 2012 at 13:56.
Moderator
Wow, Paul Bertorelli's passage is excellent. I have spoken with him, and always enjoy what he writes.
One thing Paul wrote struck me:
I don't agree with this. I think it was willful ignorance. We expect plain ignorance from a new or non aviation person, or someone with limited resources. I expect that Mr. Leeward had the experience and resources to either do it right, or know that he should not have attempted it without appropriate prior testing and validation.
A public air racing course should not also be a flight test course.
One thing Paul wrote struck me:
In my view, the Galloping Ghost accident doesn't appear to be the result of willful ignorance, rather just plain ignorance.
A public air racing course should not also be a flight test course.
