I can well imagine in an accident like this, that when they finally find and identify the body of the pilot, there is not a lot of blood left to sample.

Heck, under 17.3G the guy may have started bleeding from ruptured vessels in his legs even before the impact. Anyone knows in more detail what happens in the human body under, say, more than 15G? All I have experience with is 6G.

Put it another way - you crash your car into a bunch of people because the wheel falls off but you might have had a drink... Do you think they focus on how many "G" you pull in the crash or how many drinks you had??

An NTSB report should not focus on anything, but should list and analyze all the possible circumstances that may have anything to do with the accident.

If ever this results in a court case/insurance claim or whatever, then it's up to a judge, jury, claims adjuster or somebody like that, to decide which factor(s) was/were to blame.

There is a legally defined blood alcohol content but I haven't found anywhere a legally defined muscle alcohol content. I haven't found any studies (I'm Googling - I'm not a medical expert) which show a link between blood alcohol content and muscle alcohol content.

I understand that absorption is linked to water content of the tissue - but where are the studies? As tissues go, muscles have a large water content so relatively speaking will be able to absorb more alcohol than more fatty tissues.

Also how long after absorption is the alcohol eliminated from the muscle compared to blood / other tissues?

I haven't read through the docs but it says that its information only without analysis. Lets not jump the gun!

Yes agree the NTSB but I was referring to the focus of the law.

However now you mention it given the aircraft needed to under go testing following modification other than a personal statement saying it had been done is there any documentation of these hours? What about the pilot who also needs to be current. where is his log book? Then to the alcohol point why was there no blood sample sent for analysis?

Seems its the wild west out there. Can you imagine the fuss if you drilled a "modified" Pitts special into a bunch of people in the UK with the documentation we find here?

I know some people look fondly on this type of sport but come on there is blinkered and then there is this!

No it is not reliable because of the degradation of the body and other variables but hence why its all the more surprising blood analysis wasn't done. That aside the level in muscle is broadly 0.8 of that in blood.. I.e 80mg in muscle would be 100mg in blood.

Although it is impossible to say what the situation truely was in the air given the lack of data.

The level of recorded ethanol in muscle tissue, is based on the water content. Complicated process, but the ethanol is trapped in the blood water, which soaks into the muscle tissue. Generally however, this level disipates after 90 minutes. It is used as a back up to breath testing, however, multiple variables are at play in this process, and every individual is different.

Back to the incident, agreed that a variety of elements are at play here, and it is right that ALL causes be fully investigated, reported, and dealt with. I think the FAA, NTSB, are doing this.

http://http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/se...746&mkey=81814

Suggest you look at item 6.1 (pages 19/20) and review the work of fiction that was the pilots stated age and currency. He had an abilty to stop time as he claims to be 59 years old for 3 years. He'd done 2700 hours apparently in the Ghost, a plane whose log book records just 1447.2 hours..

Could somebody post up a logical reason for adding weight to the elevator and rudder counter weights, please.
Thanks...

Control surfaces have their own resonant frequency... i.e. they have a tendency to want to flutter. The weight is essentially a tuned mass damper.

Thanks, that makes a bunch of sense, and I guess in theory, adding weight may make them less prone to flutter at higher speeds. But I wonder what effect that extra weight would have on them in high g banked turns, or transient high g loads? Just trying to wrap my head around that particular modification.

Although it does say 2700 hours on "Ghost", it also says 2700 hours on type - he also owned and frequently flew and raced a fairly stock P-51D "Cloud Dancer".

RARA paperwork, not FAA documents, errors rather than a deliberate fiction I'd suggest - probably reused old forms and forgot to update some info and put the wrong data in another box. Can't really see it as of particular relevance to the accident, just a small fact that the NTSB noted.

Maybe but what all of this shows is the mind set.

I'm not sure how a 74 year old becomes 59 when you have to physically fill the form out - or you do 13500hrs, 2500hrs on type, in that actual aircraft - its all just a farce.

How is it really any different from these idiots who claim to be pilots when all they have done is Microsoft flight sim! Or the PPL (H) who applies to fly the Police EC145?

Has anyone seen his logbook? And if he is happy to blag his experience on the entry form, are his log book entries accurate? When he signed to say he had tested the Ghost with its current modifications - was the true or another fantasy?

What this shows is a complete disregard for the organisation at the very least. He was vein enough to feel the need to make false entries with regard to his age and flying experience.

Sadly this idiot didn't just wipe himself out but a great many others.

Fair enough, if you've already made up your mind...

However, I'm going to wait for the conclusions of the NTSB's final report when it's published.

Well, it might also be the other way around.

If you design and/or modify an aircraft to race specifically in a race such as Reno, your entry form will not be the first contact you have with the organization. In fact, the entry form will, in all likelihood, be considered both by you and the organization as an afterthought. A bit of bureaucratic paperwork to make sure the i's are dotted, the t's are crossed and the accountant and the insurance company get that warm fuzzy feeling from thinking everything is "in ordnung". But I bet the organizers knew about his participation, and the details of his participation, months or even years before he submitted his entry form.

So I can well imagine the pilot just copies last years form and sends it in. In fact, I know situations (not in flying, but elsewhere) where the organization just copied last years form as a favour to the pilot. Heck, they probably knew way, way more about the pilot and the plane from personal knowledge, than what's on the entry form anyway.

So to me this doesn't indicate a disregard for the organization or a specific mind set. In contrast, it shows me that this guy was probably very, very familiar with the organization and vice versa.

OK talk me through the hours bit...

Backpacker raises a few valid points in general (I have no knowledge on the Reno crash, and no comment to offer specifically in respect of Mr. Leeward).

Pilots who are "familiar" with a type of flying or an organization can tend to blur the boundaries of the paperwork, and be tolerated doing so. It's a possible failing on both sides. The pilot wants to fly again/more (we all do), and the organization wants to encourage their participation in general, or at least not seem unwelcoming, so as to scare/anger others off.

I used to organize a local floatplane fly-in/airshow, which met the Transport Canada requirements for organization and control. The fact that we advertized it to the public at large was the line crossed to make it an "airshow", and subject to regulation. That same event continues to this year, but only as a "fly-in" now.

Anyway, we used to have pilots turn up for "the games" on the water - planned challenges for flying skill and maneuvering mostly on the water, usually timed. Everyone had to register with me to participate. Registering required the presentation of all of the valid paperwork for the pilot and aircraft.

I found three types of people: Those who were totally compliant, and had the paperwork to prove it, those whom I knew were not compliant, but never registered, and those who thought that they would participate without the paperwork. Many pilots would present themselves to me, and not only not have the paperwork, but actually admit that they did not have a pilot's license/C of A/insurance etc. I said to several with some surprise in my voice, "do you realize that that guy over there is a Transport Canada inspector, who's watching what's going on? You should go and hide!".

Now, when I know I will be flying someone else's aircraft, I try to "push" my paperwork at them, so they don't have to pull.

I know a lot of senior pilots, whom I admire immensely, and continue to learn from. I have notice that they tend to self regulate the types of flying they do so as to be less demanding in several senses. Something about superior judgement instead of superior skill (and stamina, I suppose). One more reason I respect them....

Sure; i'm just not sure how that explains a hand written 2009 entry form gives the age at 59 instead of 72 or how you have time on that aircraft at 2500+ when the thing itself has only 1400, and total hours that vary wildly from 2009 thru 2011. Don't people just look at their logbook to find total hours?

Thing is if you just want to take a "yeah it will be ok lets self regulate" attitude that might actually be fine but we don't have that in aviation do we? We are no longer in the age of the Wright brothers and one thing this folksy wisdom ignores is that a bunch of innocent people died and perhaps when you look at all the "Don't knows" in the interviews with crew and engineering people perhaps everyone believed that everyone one else had things covered when in fact nobody did.

Oh I just agree with that observation. This is the duty of care that we all have. The aviation system has many documentation mechanisms in place to objectively demonstrate that requirements have been met - we gotta use them!

I have no statement to make specifically about Mr. Leeward. In general though, a person who does not provide required information which is compliant, or provides information which contains incorrect information should have a red flag pop up in front of them. I do not condone flying under misrepresented circumstances.

The aerodynamics which seem to be a factor in the failure of the aircraft interest me much more. There is a process for certified aircraft to demonstrate adequate margins of mechanical strength of control systems, and flutter margins. I realize that this was not a certified aircraft, but I hope there is some equivalent testing process, particularly considering the high speeds involved, and risks to the public. I wonder how compliance with whatever those requirements are was demonstrated, and how this was documented.....

I'll leave that to the NTSB if you don't mind. All I'm saying is that I'm not going to draw the same conclusion as you, based on the data from the entry form.