Big Crash at Reno
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope these stupid races end. For one thing, it's a historic shame to mangle a priceless airplane like the Mustang just for racing. If you want to race dedicated racers, fine - but this plane was pushed beyond what she was made to do, which was to kill Nazis and defend Allies. The pilot's manual shows how not to kill yourself by inducing a high-speed stall in a turn, which is exactly what this guy did. He cut the wings down by 5 feet and the ailerons by 30"! That alone is certifiably nuts. I think the ultimate in stupidity at these shows took place a couple of years ago when someone decided he could do low-level aerobatics in a P-63! A P-63!!
-drl
-drl
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an EX club car racer who then went into flying there always used to be multiple signs around race tracks informing spectators that racing is dangerous and spectators attended at their own risk.
Putting high speed vehicles close to spectators always carries a risk that a crash can involve spectators.
I will add that before car racing we went through scrutineering where the cars were closely examined to be sure they were fit for racing.
I presume the same is done with Air racing?
Watching car rallying where spectators stood in their hundreds alongside mountain forest tracks it was always an amazement to me that more were not killed.
I circuit raced back in the early 80s spectators were still very close and vulnerable to a car departing the circuit and leaping the Armco barriers.
There were fatalities and spector areas were moved further and further back from the action with other means brought in to stop cars reaching the spectator areas.
That is all well and good but at what put does the thrill factor for spectators go?
Spectators watch racing of any kind for the thrill factor.
I know little about air racing but high speed low level would imagine that a pilot with anything not being right would pitch to gain altitude as altitude is his saviour.
Pitching an aircraft with control problems could in itself aggravate those problems where a reduction in power and level speed would have been a better option but pitching must be an inbuilt reaction with racers?
What is likely to happen from this tragic event? I would imagine that Reno Follows car racing and place spectators further and further away from the action to a point that the thrill factor diminishes.
Pace
Putting high speed vehicles close to spectators always carries a risk that a crash can involve spectators.
I will add that before car racing we went through scrutineering where the cars were closely examined to be sure they were fit for racing.
I presume the same is done with Air racing?
Watching car rallying where spectators stood in their hundreds alongside mountain forest tracks it was always an amazement to me that more were not killed.
I circuit raced back in the early 80s spectators were still very close and vulnerable to a car departing the circuit and leaping the Armco barriers.
There were fatalities and spector areas were moved further and further back from the action with other means brought in to stop cars reaching the spectator areas.
That is all well and good but at what put does the thrill factor for spectators go?
Spectators watch racing of any kind for the thrill factor.
I know little about air racing but high speed low level would imagine that a pilot with anything not being right would pitch to gain altitude as altitude is his saviour.
Pitching an aircraft with control problems could in itself aggravate those problems where a reduction in power and level speed would have been a better option but pitching must be an inbuilt reaction with racers?
What is likely to happen from this tragic event? I would imagine that Reno Follows car racing and place spectators further and further away from the action to a point that the thrill factor diminishes.
Pace
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The frozen north....
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I hope these stupid races end. For one thing, it's a historic shame to mangle a priceless airplane like the Mustang just for racing. If you want to race dedicated racers, fine - but this plane was pushed beyond what she was made to do, which was to kill Nazis and defend Allies. The pilot's manual shows how not to kill yourself by inducing a high-speed stall in a turn, which is exactly what this guy did. He cut the wings down by 5 feet and the ailerons by 30"! That alone is certifiably nuts. I think the ultimate in stupidity at these shows took place a couple of years ago when someone decided he could do low-level aerobatics in a P-63! A P-63!!
-drl
-drl
The Cooler King
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In the Desert
Posts: 1,703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed!
deSitter.......did you not read this earlier, or are you just too ignorant to care?
What the heck.....I'll paste it in here for you...
deSitter.......did you not read this earlier, or are you just too ignorant to care?
What the heck.....I'll paste it in here for you...
DeSitter:
One of your first ever posts on this forum was:
"I am a physicist, not a pilot, so I promise to say nothing stupid about flying or commercial aviation."
I suggest you go and meditate on that , as your latest post is just disrespectful drivel.
The post below, my dear expert of the skies, is your best by far and shows those who matter, what they are dealing with.
"I live under a waypoint for KATL on the way to RWY 26 - the jets pass over at 8-11 thousand feet typically, parallel to the runways in the opposite direction, before turning 180 into the airport. This afternoon a 767 passed over at no more than 2! and perhaps as low as 1,500 - really quite low - the plane seemed in no distress and the engines sounded perfectly normal - he was headed (fortunately!) toward the field - is it common for a go-around to fly so low? What would explain it? I've lived here for 5 years and that's a first for me, a keen spotter. Thanks in advance."
One of your first ever posts on this forum was:
"I am a physicist, not a pilot, so I promise to say nothing stupid about flying or commercial aviation."
I suggest you go and meditate on that , as your latest post is just disrespectful drivel.
The post below, my dear expert of the skies, is your best by far and shows those who matter, what they are dealing with.
"I live under a waypoint for KATL on the way to RWY 26 - the jets pass over at 8-11 thousand feet typically, parallel to the runways in the opposite direction, before turning 180 into the airport. This afternoon a 767 passed over at no more than 2! and perhaps as low as 1,500 - really quite low - the plane seemed in no distress and the engines sounded perfectly normal - he was headed (fortunately!) toward the field - is it common for a go-around to fly so low? What would explain it? I've lived here for 5 years and that's a first for me, a keen spotter. Thanks in advance."
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilot's manual shows how not to kill yourself by inducing a high-speed stall in a turn, which is exactly what this guy did.
He cut the wings down by 5 feet and the ailerons by 30"! That alone is certifiably nuts.
I think the ultimate in stupidity at these shows took place a couple of years ago when someone decided he could do low-level aerobatics in a P-63! A P-63!!
1) The aircraft did not experience a high speed stall. What makes you think it did?
2) Most of the Unlimited Class are modified. Do you have problems with them as well.
3) The P-63 is a fighter aircraft. Fighters do aerobatics. Why do you think it should not be able to?
Last edited by Lost in Saigon; 19th Sep 2011 at 13:25.
total loss of control is not what I would have expected.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: PDX
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[Not a pilot, so I will not attempt any jargon. Please delete this if it is just adding to the noise.] I have not been to Reno for some years. When I was last there, planes would pass in front of and behind the grandstands. There were penalties for cutting pylons, but I had never heard that there was a minimum height necessary to cross the deadline. Perhaps if one crossed beyond the painted end of the deadline (i. e., to the west of Runway 8/26), they would be allowed to pass behind the grandstands, but could not cross the physically painted deadline, otherwise. No one ever crossed over the grandstands.
A minimum height above the ground was instituted some years ago, around the time Lefty Gardner's P-38 came back with barbed wire in one of the wings. [I understand that his day job was crop dusting.] There were reports of a Mustang [was it Skip Holmes'? ] hitting a rabbit, and I do recall spectators diving to the ground on the back course before the minimum height rule was instituted. From memory, below 1500 feet (above sea level?) altitude was considered the active race course and above that was reserved for emergency use and for slower traffic (e. g., overheating planes that wished to cool down before resuming the race). If a pilot declared a mayday, the remaining planes would circle above the race course until the emergency was resolved.
Incidentally, the AT-6 Texan/Harvard planes are so evenly matched that they fly in tight formation. I believe that they honored the deadline, but I always feared what might happen if a few of them touched wingtips at the point where Mr. Leeward lost control.
A minimum height above the ground was instituted some years ago, around the time Lefty Gardner's P-38 came back with barbed wire in one of the wings. [I understand that his day job was crop dusting.] There were reports of a Mustang [was it Skip Holmes'? ] hitting a rabbit, and I do recall spectators diving to the ground on the back course before the minimum height rule was instituted. From memory, below 1500 feet (above sea level?) altitude was considered the active race course and above that was reserved for emergency use and for slower traffic (e. g., overheating planes that wished to cool down before resuming the race). If a pilot declared a mayday, the remaining planes would circle above the race course until the emergency was resolved.
Incidentally, the AT-6 Texan/Harvard planes are so evenly matched that they fly in tight formation. I believe that they honored the deadline, but I always feared what might happen if a few of them touched wingtips at the point where Mr. Leeward lost control.
Last edited by fotoguzzi; 19th Sep 2011 at 15:21. Reason: add info from map
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: PDX
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[Not a pilot - Please delete as others add better charts]. Here is a quick and dirty map via Google:
The course is a ~9 mi. counterclockwise oval with the short side along Runway 8/26 and the grandstands. The longer sides fit mostly within the hills, though some of the planes do go directly over the foothills that parallel Lemon Valley Drive.
I understand that the race officials put certain homeowners up in hotels for the duration of the races.
The course is a ~9 mi. counterclockwise oval with the short side along Runway 8/26 and the grandstands. The longer sides fit mostly within the hills, though some of the planes do go directly over the foothills that parallel Lemon Valley Drive.
I understand that the race officials put certain homeowners up in hotels for the duration of the races.
Last edited by fotoguzzi; 19th Sep 2011 at 14:04. Reason: readability
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LIS
Are you not showing the field and all the spectators inside the course?
The show line is actually between the runways and the grandstands.
Otherwise thanks, folks were getting the geography of the airfield seriously fubared.
Are you not showing the field and all the spectators inside the course?
The show line is actually between the runways and the grandstands.
Otherwise thanks, folks were getting the geography of the airfield seriously fubared.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is likely to happen from this tragic event? I would imagine that Reno Follows car racing and place spectators further and further away from the action to a point that the thrill factor diminishes.
I'm pretty sure that post the Ramstein airshow crash, manouveres towards the crowd were prohibited. I guess at 400+ knots, any distance of less than a mile from the course to the crowd is purely academic if there is a loss of control.
- [Display Line distance from Crowd Line] Above 300 kt IAS 200 metres [flypast] 230 metres [aerobatics]
- Over CAP403, typically "or 450m display line with on-crowd vector above 300kts"
NoD
Thanks Lost!
I think that will help people to orient themselves somewhat. There is normally a course diagram on the race website somewhere, but not right now. From seeing it previously, the deadline is shown but I don't recall exactly where it is with respect to the centerline of rwy 08/26. Unless I've got it all wrong, it is at least 1,500' from the line the spectators are kept behind.
As long as the airplane energy is directed parallel to or way from the show line (spectator barrier) this margin has always been considered sufficient in he past. Obviously not every possible occurrence can be guarded against by this or any safety precaution, but this is the currently accepted standard. Obviously the measures in place up until now will come under scrutiny following this accident. I just hope reason prevails.
I think that will help people to orient themselves somewhat. There is normally a course diagram on the race website somewhere, but not right now. From seeing it previously, the deadline is shown but I don't recall exactly where it is with respect to the centerline of rwy 08/26. Unless I've got it all wrong, it is at least 1,500' from the line the spectators are kept behind.
As long as the airplane energy is directed parallel to or way from the show line (spectator barrier) this margin has always been considered sufficient in he past. Obviously not every possible occurrence can be guarded against by this or any safety precaution, but this is the currently accepted standard. Obviously the measures in place up until now will come under scrutiny following this accident. I just hope reason prevails.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think people know that if they go to watch high speed sports there is an element of risk involved. Same thing happened at Le Mans many years ago when an engine cut its way through the grandstand after an accident.
Bad news, but would I go to Reno....? You bet I would and if I weren't working this year, I would probably have gone.
Fate is the hunter
Bad news, but would I go to Reno....? You bet I would and if I weren't working this year, I would probably have gone.
Fate is the hunter
Moderator
Hmm, Seeing the layout (having never been to the races myself) brings to mind the wording of the Canadian regulations:
Air show aerobatic manoeuvres conducted inside the aerobatic box that have a descending recovery with a pull or push and having a flight path which, when extended, would contact the primary spectator area will not be approved for inclusion in an air show.
The Reno races (though I agree they are American, not Canadian) are not an "airshow" you say?...
"air show" - means an aerial display or demonstration before an invited assembly of persons by one or more aircraft;
The races are not "aerobatics" you say?....
"aerobatic manoeuvre" - means a manoeuvre where a change in the attitude of an aircraft results in a bank angle greater than 60 degrees, an abnormal attitude or an abnormal acceleration not incidental to normal flying;
Air show aerobatic manoeuvres conducted inside the aerobatic box that have a descending recovery with a pull or push and having a flight path which, when extended, would contact the primary spectator area will not be approved for inclusion in an air show.
The Reno races (though I agree they are American, not Canadian) are not an "airshow" you say?...
"air show" - means an aerial display or demonstration before an invited assembly of persons by one or more aircraft;
The races are not "aerobatics" you say?....
"aerobatic manoeuvre" - means a manoeuvre where a change in the attitude of an aircraft results in a bank angle greater than 60 degrees, an abnormal attitude or an abnormal acceleration not incidental to normal flying;
Join Date: May 2011
Location: here
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think people know that if they go to watch high speed sports there is an element of risk involved. Same thing happened at Le Mans many years ago when an engine cut its way through the grandstand after an accident.
Bad news, but would I go to Reno....? You bet I would and if I weren't working this year, I would probably have gone.
Fate is the hunter
Bad news, but would I go to Reno....? You bet I would and if I weren't working this year, I would probably have gone.
Fate is the hunter
Looking at the car racing scene shows that progress in safety can be made. The following chart shows the average yearly death toll in F1 racing. F1 has come from times where it was perfectly normal to bury 1 in 10 drivers per year (not even counting those getting killed off track or while driving in different series) to not having lost a driver for 17 years now (knock on wood).
Yes, motorsports is dangerous (as is flying). That doesn't mean you shouldn't take a hard look at the risks involved and minimize them where appropriate.
The advances in auto racing safety worldwide are attributable to number of factors from driver equipment to car design to track safety features. HANS, track runoff areas, energy absorbent barriers and more robust driver compartments coupled with frangible exterior have been very effective in reducing injuries and deaths in the sport. Drivers and teams push it harder than ever before, relying on these safety features to protect them in the event of a crash. There are probably more crashes than ever before.
As it happens, little of this is directly applicable to air racing. Unlike auto racing, any safety gains made in this sport are made by preventing a crash from happening in the first place rather than by minimizing the consequences of a crash. As far as racing at Reno goes, I'd have to call the overall effort pretty successful considering that something like 18 pilots have died in crashes in all race classes since 1964. Considering the nature of the sport and the number of flight operations conducted during this time, 18 is not a large number.
This year marks the first time a spectator has died or been seriously injured in a racing accident. Certainly fortune plays a part in lack of spectator involvement in crashes before this year, but so too does the design of the race course layout and designated spectator areas. Undoubtedly, this will now be scrutinized as never before.
In auto racing, catch fences and barriers are ever more robust and spectators placed further from the action in an attempt to isolate them from the crash energy. Mostly it works well enough, though the next disaster could happen at any time and race organizers know it. They take the steps that are deemed necessary and continue to hold their races. Any risk remaining is deemed acceptable by everyone* attending the races or they wouldn't be there. Caveat Emptor
*Exception: children and others legally precluded from deciding for themselves.
As it happens, little of this is directly applicable to air racing. Unlike auto racing, any safety gains made in this sport are made by preventing a crash from happening in the first place rather than by minimizing the consequences of a crash. As far as racing at Reno goes, I'd have to call the overall effort pretty successful considering that something like 18 pilots have died in crashes in all race classes since 1964. Considering the nature of the sport and the number of flight operations conducted during this time, 18 is not a large number.
This year marks the first time a spectator has died or been seriously injured in a racing accident. Certainly fortune plays a part in lack of spectator involvement in crashes before this year, but so too does the design of the race course layout and designated spectator areas. Undoubtedly, this will now be scrutinized as never before.
In auto racing, catch fences and barriers are ever more robust and spectators placed further from the action in an attempt to isolate them from the crash energy. Mostly it works well enough, though the next disaster could happen at any time and race organizers know it. They take the steps that are deemed necessary and continue to hold their races. Any risk remaining is deemed acceptable by everyone* attending the races or they wouldn't be there. Caveat Emptor
*Exception: children and others legally precluded from deciding for themselves.
Just announced a tenth person died from the accident.
Earlier today it was announced that a newly retired (age 60) B-777 Air Canada captain and his wife had died at the airshow. They were seated in the VIP box.
How ironic can this be? Fly for Air Canada for 40 years, retire, go the Reno Air Races and unfortunately die at the show.
RIP to all victims and sympathies to their families.
Earlier today it was announced that a newly retired (age 60) B-777 Air Canada captain and his wife had died at the airshow. They were seated in the VIP box.
How ironic can this be? Fly for Air Canada for 40 years, retire, go the Reno Air Races and unfortunately die at the show.
RIP to all victims and sympathies to their families.