James Gosling Report of Reno Air Crash

Earlier today, a tragic crash at the Reno National Championship Air Races killed at least 12 spectators, and left at least 75 injured. Reader xmas2003 writes with a link to Java creator James Gosling's first-hand account of the crash, which he describes as "better than most of what is being reported in mainstream media so far."

Comments

Re:Thought the potential of crashes was the point.

[Arethan]

Yep.
You just misunderstand air shows.

Re:Thought the potential of crashes was the point.

[dirtyhippie]

The potential of crashes is indeed part of the point. But in general people prefer the thrill to be derived from those engaged in the pursuit risking their lives, not those in the audience. Messed up, but true.

Still waiting to hear from my family

[storkus]

Though I live in Phoenix now, all of my family is there, and though its unlikely they went to the show, for some reason I can't get a hold of anyone but my dad and aunt--who are both out of town.

The Reno Air Races have a long history, and this is apparently the first time a plane crashed into the stands. The previous crashes didn't stop the event--that is, it went on again the next year--and I hope this one doesn't either.

Re:Still waiting to hear from my family

[eplawless]

I don't mean to trivialize your concern, but for a moment I was certain you were parodying this: http://www.theonion.com/video/millions-irrationally-feared-dead-in-minor-train-a,20901/ "After a small train derailment in Delaware, Americans all across the nation are senselessly fearing for their loved ones' lives."

Re:Still waiting to hear from my family

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my god! some people died in the same city that my family lives in, at an event they don't go to. Drama time!

You know deep down inside you wish you were somehow affected by this. Which is why you start freaking out, hoping in that dark place that you can join in on the drama.

Sad.

Re:OT: moderator points??

[DiSKiLLeR]

Dunno. I've been on slashdot forever.

I get mod points all the time. Like really often. For years now. I and when I do, I always get 15 at a time.

I really have no idea why....

Re:Thought the potential of crashes was the point.

[Powercntrl]

I thought it was: NASCAR for the crashes, Superbowl for the commercials, PlayBoy for the articles and 4chan for the lulz.

Re:Thought the potential of crashes was the point.

[thesh0ck]

was an air race, not a show.

Re:Thought the potential of crashes was the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

also the planes are cool

i was there

[Anonymous Coward]

i saw it first hand, the galloping ghost lost control and did a barrel roll over the stands and crashed 50 feet away from me into the edge of the box seats. it looked like its aileron got stuck and he couldn't correct it. i love the air races like no other and iv been involved with it literately my whole life, but i will never forget what i saw.

Re:i was there

[Anonymous Coward]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v414/hikari_corgan/Jimmy_Leeward_Do_A_Barrel_Roll.jpg

Re:i was there

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw an air crash. I've never been the same, but still here is still here. Visiting memorial websites helps a couple years down the road when you get the heebies at night. Be aware of PTSD.

Best and a prayer to you.

Re:i was there

[Anonymous Coward]

50ft from the boxes? You a section 3er? How's everyone holding up?

Re:i was there

[Savantissimo]

A comment on the Gosling blog has a link to a very clear picture from less than a second before the crash showing the left elevator trim tab missing, also possible smoke from under the rear fuselage in the vicinity of the tail wheel. There do not appear to be any major control inputs to my inexperienced eye other than a slightly depressed right aileron and possible up elevator, though the latter is hard to see. The view shows only the top of the plane and no background to show the plane's orientation. The pilot is hunched forward with his helmet at the front of the cockpit.

Another shot, less than a plane length before impact, shows the tail wheel deployed and the pilot's head is not visible in the cockpit, though the picture would show it if it were above the edge of the cockpit.

That tail wheel is normally retracted in race trim. Odds are control flutter from the unbalanced elevator combined with the high-G pull-up maneuver shook it open.

Eyewitness reports say Jimmy [Leeward] did everything he could to keep that plane out of the crowd. He was probably pulling on that stick with everything he had.

Curiously, the rear portion of the left elevator is not clear, although the shot is fast enough to freeze the propeller and the angle is a perfect left-side profile. The elevator may have been fluttering at an extreme rate, blurring the view, or it may just be a consequence of the low contrast of the elevator against the fuselage with identical paint. At the time of the crash the plane is right-side up, flying above the crowd from the back towards the front of the crowd, as if trying to pull out of a loop and it impacts at about a 45 degree angle.

Another video from the parking lot shows that the plane lost vertical control about 12 seconds before impact and first nosed up several hundred feet in 7 seconds before turning from vertical up to vertical down in less than three seconds, apparently at near full speed the whole way. The crash happened less than three seconds after the plane nosed down.

Also see: the gallery for the AP story "3 dead, 56 injured in horrific US air show crash" for high-resolution versions.

Re:i was there

[Anonymous Coward]

The "smoke" is water vapor that is supposed to be there, according to the people I was with, the crew of the top biplane racer. There are exhausts where that vapor is.
A few years back, there was a similar trim tab issue with the "Voodoo" P-51, also running in the unlimited race.
There also was a camera in the plane, and the NTSB has found the memory cards. It remains to be seen if they can get data off them, but it is likely.
The pilot's head not being visible is not a surprise. During the pitch up, the pilot was subjected to high G-forces, likely more than 10 G. He probably became unconscious and slumped in his seat. It is unclear if he could have regained consciousness at the apex, and push the stick so to get away from the grandstands.

Re:i was there

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know specifically which Box numbers were hit by the crash?

Re:Thought the potential of crashes was the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the song says: You can't always get what you want...

Re:OT: moderator points??

[Reality Master 101]

I don't know how it works now, but my understanding is that in the past, you only got mod points if you were generally in the middle of visitation frequency. If you visited too little, or you visited too much, then you didn't get mod points. I believe the theory was that CmdrTaco didn't want people at either extreme. So either you haven't been visiting as much, or they changed the algorithm.

Trajectory

[dirtyhippie]

I don't want to sound conspiratorial, but the trajectory the plane took makes no sense to me. In an airshow you always stay in a designated zone on the other side of a runway from the crowd. The other planes earlier in the video were clearly in that zone. The plane that crashed was coming in at a very steep angle - probably more than 70 degrees - and from what I can tell in the video, he was moving *away* from the bleachers towards the acrobatic zone. You're not ever supposed to be over the crowd like that or take a trajectory that crosses above the crowd, even at substantial altitude. How did this happen?

Re:Trajectory

[Saul Bash]

A number of people have commented on it appearing to climb abruptly, stall, and fall. The pilot was quite old—perhaps he experienced a heart attack or stroke, or there could have been a mechanical failure that caused loss of control, resulting in it drifting far off course before stalling over the crowd.

Re:Trajectory

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is more footage I would not be surprised to see a loop being performed. Not saying the loop was intentional, but it could have been part of losing control.

Re:Trajectory

[Dan East]

It wasn't an air show, it was a race.

Re:Trajectory

[spopepro]

As others have said, it's not a show, but a race. Also, unlimited class race planes are not normal planes. They chop the wings and boost the superchargers. Tiger Destifani once said that without a significant amount of thrust, the modified P51s have the aerodynamic capability of a cannonball. As they must for those speeds. One of the most amazing things I've ever seen was a P51 (I think it was the Red Baron, notable for having counter-rotating props) diving into the main straight to do a qualifying lap and see vapor trails coming off the wings at 1000ft. P51s aren't supposed go get anywhere near those speeds. The point being: these aren't normal planes, and they aren't doing normal activities, and they are always on the edge of the envelope.

Re:Trajectory

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to tell. When there's a problem where the pilot feels he needs to bow out, it's usual for them to declare mayday and climb up and around to land while the race continues. I was there, and when I first saw the plane climb I thought it was just another routine failure, but when he flipped over I could see it wobbling a bit, and it seemed like a control surface may have malfunctioned and stuck in a position outside its normal range of motion while the pilot fought for control. Also don't forget that it was windy all day. (I don't remember which way it was blowing)

As for claims of him having a heart attack or some other medical problem... It MAY be possible, but I don't think so. I personally think a person in his position would know better than to fly if he was in bad shape, not to mention the physicals they go through regularly.

Re:Trajectory

[theshowmecanuck]

I saw a crash at an airshow before. The plane (a Fairey Firefly... WWII British carrier fighter/bomber) was flying and something fucked up and the plane went in a weird direction did a kind of roll turn up and then literally straight down into Lake Ontario just off the Ontario Place jetty by the marina. The pilot died and we saw them pull his body out of the water an hour later. The point is, I learned that going at a high rate of speed the distances on the ground that you think are big are absolutely nothing. And when something fucks up, the plane can go in any direction really fast. And in fact, in many directions really fast. The worst part is when it comes to a sudden stop.

Re:Trajectory

[statusbar]

Here are some interesting photos which may show that there was mechanical failure: Elevator trim tab missing

Another scary series of photos: Impact

--jeffk++

Re:Trajectory

[Anachragnome]

"The pilot was quite old--perhaps he experienced a heart attack or stroke..."

I think you might be right. Take a look at this photo from the NYTimes article--it is photo #3 in the series.

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2011/09/16/us/20110917_RENO-IPAD-3.html

Answer me this--In that photo, where the fuck is the pilot?

All I see is an empty canopy. Unconscious and puddled in his seat? Wouldn't a harness hold him up enough that he would be visible in the canopy in that photo? That canopy didn't have a "mirrored" filter on it, did it? The next image in that series is obviously taken BEFORE the crash, so it is quite possible the image (#3) was taken earlier as well, but, if so, that would be pretty irresponsible of the NYTimes to caption the image the way it was.

I've seen a P-51 up close, with the pilot in the seat, and that pilot was quite visible. Again, in this photo, where the fuck is the pilot?

Re:Trajectory

[Anachragnome]

Addendum:

This video on a local news outlet shows some OLD footage of the Galloping Ghost (approx 2:20) and the pilot is CLEARLY visible in the canopy.

The only reason I can think of for a pilot not being visible in the canopy, as in the NYTimes image, is because they are hunched down--much as one would be if they were unconscious.

Re:Trajectory

[Dunbal]

Yeah there's a missing trim tab, but the elevator is level - there's no pressure at all on the stick. I guess we'll have to wait for the NTSB.

Re:Trajectory

[nathanh]

A number of people have commented on it appearing to climb abruptly, stall, and fall.

It did not look like a stall. It looked like a powered inverted loop.

Re:Trajectory

[Anonymous Coward]

As other comments point out, he had lost one elevator trim tab. With the airplane going at high speeds, the pilot will trim the elevators nose-down to counteract the lift. When a trim tab falls off, it causes a sudden pitch up which at high speeds causes many Gs of acceleration (say, 10G), which can cause loss of consciousness in the pilot. It all sounds plausible to me and could explain why he wasn't sitting upright in the cockpit.

Re:Trajectory

[arikol]

the issue is that at maximum speed then the trim tab is providing a LOT of force to keep the nose down. When it breaks off the plane will pitch up quite violently. If that sudden, instant pitch up hurts the pilot (too high G force or face slammed into instrument panel) then the plane loses speed going straight up but still carries enough energy to complete the unintentional loop without stalling (the speed is so high that a pitch up condition goes through the vertical) and then goes down under full power with no control.
Yes, the elevator is level in that picture. But that picture is taken at one of the points of lowest speed.
In that same picture it looks like you can see his helmet slumped near the instrument panel.

Correct, you do not understand

[drnb]

Thought the potential of crashes was the point or do I just not understand air shows?

As someone who attended quite a few air shows growing up I feel it is safe to say that people go to see the airplanes. Hell I would have gone to see a P-51 sitting on the tarmac let alone fly. Seeing one crash and be destroyed is not something that an aviation or history enthusiast wants to see, nor does anyone want to see people get hurt.

Re:Correct, you do not understand

[GrahamCox]

Definitely. I can't believe that first comment. No-one wants to see an air crash, that's truly sick. As the blogger said, it's nothing like the movies. I saw a fatal accident at an airshow in the 1970s and it was a horrible, horrible thing to witness. It's as vivid in my mind now as it was right then - you never forget those things.

This is simply tragic and a terrible waste of life. My condolences to all those who have lost loved ones.

Re:Correct, you do not understand

[assemblerex]

Part of the tail came off, and he lost control. It was headed directly for the stands, and the pilot knew he was going to die.
His last act was to exert as much pressure on the stick as possible and avoid the stands. He succeeded and hit the boxes in front of the stands
We're talking hundreds dead versus dozens

Re:Correct, you do not understand

[Nehmo]

As someone who attended quite a few air shows growing up I feel it is safe to say that people go to see the airplanes. Hell I would have gone to see a P-51 sitting on the tarmac let alone fly. Seeing one crash and be destroyed is not something that an aviation or history enthusiast wants to see, nor does anyone want to see people get hurt.

Of course, but that's your subjective intellect talking. I suspect you logically don't want wrecks (you don't wish any ill on the pilots or planes), but at some sub level, you would be excited and entertained if you witnessed a good crash. I'm not afraid to admit it. I'd love to see a big crash - explosion - fire.

Re:Correct, you do not understand

[drinkypoo]

As someone who attended quite a few air shows growing up I feel it is safe to say that people go to see the airplanes.

You're both making somewhat irrelevant statements because this was not just an air show, but an air race. A fly-in is an air show. A race is something else. You are right because someone might go to an air show just to see planes. But nobody goes to an air race just because planes are going fast. Part of the thrill is that it's dangerous. When so much metal and fuel is going through the air so fast (not that going that fast on land is safe) there is inherent danger which can be instinctively understood by all participants, both those in the air and those on the ground. (This event proves conclusively that those on the ground are participants...)

Re:Correct, you do not understand

[Raenex]

I'm not afraid to admit it. I'd love to see a big crash - explosion - fire.

I remember a Simpsons episode where they went to see a car race. Every time it looked like somebody was about to crash the audience went, "oh... oh...", and then "aww" when the car regained control.

Re:Correct, you do not understand

[rocket rancher]

Thought the potential of crashes was the point or do I just not understand air shows?

As someone who attended quite a few air shows growing up I feel it is safe to say that people go to see the airplanes. Hell I would have gone to see a P-51 sitting on the tarmac let alone fly. Seeing one crash and be destroyed is not something that an aviation or history enthusiast wants to see, nor does anyone want to see people get hurt.

Dude -- and this goes for the GP, too -- it was an air race, not an air show. The Reno Air Race is to air racing what the Indy 500 is to car racing. The only real difference between air racing and car racing is that the air race fans are generally richer, and even more white than their NASCAR cousins. Think Tea Party vs the rest of the Republican base. But they do have at least one thing in common -- they are there for the crashes, and not much else.

Re:Correct, you do not understand

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I think we could make a popular spectator sport based on the idea of catapulting assholes like you into a concrete wall.

Re:Correct, you do not understand

[RoFLKOPTr]

and the pilot knew he was going to die.

He could have ejected to save his own life, but he elected to die.

Re:Correct, you do not understand

[drnb]

and the pilot knew he was going to die.

He could have ejected to save his own life, but he elected to die.

WW2 aircraft do not have ejection seats. Pilots have to unstrap, climb out and exit in a manner to minimize the chance of getting hit by the tail.

Re:Correct, you do not understand

[drnb]

Of course, but that's your subjective intellect talking. I suspect you logically don't want wrecks (you don't wish any ill on the pilots or planes), but at some sub level, you would be excited and entertained if you witnessed a good crash. I'm not afraid to admit it. I'd love to see a big crash - explosion - fire.

Given no injuries to people ...

As someone who has blown things up, *legally*, I understand the argument you are making. When a MIG-29 crashes that can be interesting. A MIG-29 is new and replaceable. However when a P-51 Mustang crashes the loss of the aircraft is an inherent tragedy. It is a rare and important piece of history, it is irreplaceable.

If I watch a MIG-29 fly it is technical and engineering marvel. However if I watch a P-51 fly there is an emotional element that is lacking in the case of modern jets. This emotional element changes that lower level interpretation of what was witnessed.

Re:Correct, you do not understand

[RoFLKOPTr]

Oh my bad. I guess I read faulty information elsewhere.

Re:Correct, you do not understand

[drnb]

Perhaps you saw some experimental stuff. IIRC they were researching ejection seats during WW2.

Re:Correct, you do not understand

[Wyatt Earp]

You don't understand the concept of a "race" do you?

A race has multiple competitors on the field. A time trial or technical event is a timed event were competitors go one at a time to try and establish the best time for the course.

As for auto racing, (you can't just single out NASCAR), they do time trials in the qualification part of a race week to establish starting position.

Re:Correct, you do not understand

[Wyatt Earp]

This aircraft was not a stock WW2 Mustang, it was a heavily modified racing plane. It could have had an ejection seat.

SKS-94s have been marketed since the mid-90s for propeller driven racers like this one was.

Re:Correct, you do not understand

[That Guy From Mrktng]

Unless this P 51 was modified to add an ejection system the originals didn't have one, at this height jumping from the plane alone could not have been different so, indeed he knew he was going to die. On the other hand, he was 80 so it's not like he had a whole life in front of him, I would have done the same being 80 and having the opportunity to save dozens of people.

Re:Correct, you do not understand

[rthille]

It's a tragedy because not enough people died for it to be mere statistics.

Oh and you could call time trials 'races', but the ability to jockey and pass during auto races is one of the skills which makes a given racer better or worse than another...

Re:Correct, you do not understand

[rocket rancher]

You don't understand the concept of a "race" do you?

A race has multiple competitors on the field. A time trial or technical event is a timed event were competitors go one at a time to try and establish the best time for the course.

As for auto racing, (you can't just single out NASCAR), they do time trials in the qualification part of a race week to establish starting position.

You make my point for me...you just demonstrated that time-trials are not enough for the fans, because the racing promoters apparently feel they *still* have to send multiple cars out. Historically, the number of driver and spectator deaths over the past century has turned automobile and air racing into bloodsports, and bloodsports are indefensible, period. A driver crashed at Le Mans in 1955, and took not only his own life, but the lives of 80 spectators. Ditto Indianapolis Raceway in the US, where 56 drivers have lost their lives. There has to be some reason racing promoters still insist on having multiple cars in the field simultaneously, and the reason is blood. They know the fans want it, and they also know that the fans wouldn't spend a dime on racing if there wasn't a chance they'd get some blood. Can you look the shades of all the dead drivers and spectators in the eye and still maintain that your narrow-minded concept of competition is justifiable?

And, fwiw, if you are still reading this, I do indeed understand the concept of competition -- I race my Ducati and my 'Vette in time-trials, achieving spectacular velocities with zero danger to anybody but myself, and the roar of the fans when somebody breaks 250mph on a streetable machine is no less enjoyable because we didn't try to (stupidly) achieve those velocities simultaneously. Competition is more than just the simultaneous display of skills among vehicle operators; competition would still exist without it. And you seem to be eliding the fact that the drivers' skills are kinda pointless without the skills of the engineering and support teams that provide a competition-worthy vehicle in the first place. Our competition is more about technical skill than reflexes, though you still need those at 200mph on a swerving and swooping track. You can have the best reflexes on the planet, but without the skills to turn a wrench or program an engine control unit, you might as well stick to gladitorial combat.

Re:Correct, you do not understand

[rocket rancher]

It's a tragedy because not enough people died for it to be mere statistics.

Oh and you could call time trials 'races', but the ability to jockey and pass during auto races is one of the skills which makes a given racer better or worse than another...

Hmmm..."not enough people died for it to be mere statistics." Taken in isolation, this could be true -- a driver here, a driver there, a few spectators here, a few spectators there, though the Le Mans disaster in 1955 (81 dead -- the driver and 80 spectators) probably effectively shuts down your argument. But since we do have a memory, and can put perspective on this sport, you can see that the statistics start to pile up. Just google "spectator and driver related deaths in motorsports" and I think you'll understand why your position is untenable.

The ability to jockey and pass during auto races (from my perspective it is more the *lack* of this ability that is salient) may be a component to the competition, but it is not the only one. What is key is that it is the single component that is responsible for all the carnage. Removing that component still leaves competition, and more importantly, it prevents deaths. Automobile racing is a bloodsport, no different in principle than the gladitorial combat that the Romans used to divert their populations during periods of civil unrest. Fwiw, given the political alignment of the fans that support auto racing, the parallels between NASCAR and the Roman arena are stunning.

Re:Correct, you do not understand

[Wyatt Earp]

Three people died in the 2009 Detroit Marathon, so should road races be run by individuals? Or hell, it's a "gladiatorial combat" and should be banned?

Now to your point about Indianapolis, only 17 drivers have died there during races, not 56. 33 died in single driver testing or qualifications, the very model you advocate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indianapolis_500_fatal_accidents

Re:Correct, you do not understand

[rthille]

The 'it's a tragedy' bit was just a nod to Stalin: "One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic."

As for this: "What is key is that it is the single component [multiple racers on the course at the same time] that is responsible for all the carnage." It's patently false. Drivers often lose control without contact with other drivers.

Re:Correct, you do not understand

[rocket rancher]

Three people died in the 2009 Detroit Marathon, so should road races be run by individuals? Or hell, it's a "gladiatorial combat" and should be banned?

Now to your point about Indianapolis, only 17 drivers have died there during races, not 56. 33 died in single driver testing or qualifications, the very model you advocate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indianapolis_500_fatal_accidents

I'll concede your numbers -- I'd wished I'd found your source, because I was really more interested in spectator deaths at Indy, to balance the 80 spectators who died at Le Mans. I'll take the round dozen that your source identifies, with great appreciation. fwiw here's the source for my 56 drivers

With that said, you really haven't justfied even one death, let alone 17. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and kills people when it's wheels fly completely out of the venue and kill a twelve year old boy playing in his front yard, it's a blood sport, okay?

And attempting a reductio ad absurdum by comparing a bunch of joggers with the Indy 500 is so fucking stupid I had to read it twice to make sure that was your intent. Do you really *not* understand the difference between a person on foot and a person at the controls of a fairly massive machine moving at a significant fraction of Mach? If you don't, you are wasting my time, dude.

Re:Correct, you do not understand

[Wyatt Earp]

A bloodsport involves violence against animals, so by it's very definition as an automobile race, the Indy 500 isn't a bloodsport.

If 56 spectators have died at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway which over the last 102 years has about 25-26,000,000 total spectators, that means the chance of dying at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway is much, much lower than say, taking a bath, or crossing the street.

0.2 per 100,000 spectators die at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, in 2009 there are 11.01 fatalities from auto accidents per 100,000 people. So being in the stands is much, much safer than being in a car.

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

I know saying "a significant fraction of Mach" sounds really cool, but 220 mph isn't that fast compared to the speed of sound at the altitude of Indy. 220 miles per hour is going to be less than 30% of the speed of sound. (at 30 C the speed of sound at the raceway is going to be roughly 780 mph)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Tables

As for comparing a marathon to a automobile race, you are the one who is arguing that racing against other individuals is too dangerous. That danger extends to marathons too. In the 2009 Detroit Marathon there were 19,326 runners, with 3 dead that is a death rate of 15.5 per 100,000, much, much more dangerous than spectating at an auto race.

"better than most of what is being reported"

[gehrehmee]

Where does the quote "better than most of what is being reported" come from? It's not in Gosling's report, and if anything, what he reports is quite a bit worse than what the media is reporting.

Re:"better than most of what is being reported"

[Microlith]

"Better" as in "more accurate."

Not "better" as in "things weren't quite as bad as reported."

Re:"better than most of what is being reported"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, his report is nowhere near as thorough as the article from a mainstream media source that I read on fark a few hours ago. That article plus video also included interviews with witnesses They were already reporting 75+ injured and many dead. Not sure why the submitter felt the need to belittle the media that is apparently accurately covering this story.

Re:"better than most of what is being reported"

[FooAtWFU]

This. But despite the advantages of a good eyewitness account, one of the advantages remaining for the mainstream media has is enough servers to handle a lot of traffic. *cough* slashdot effect *cough*

Re:"better than most of what is being reported"

[Shag]

Maybe they're a Java fan and bitter that the media never gives anything Gosling does sufficient respect. ;)

Re:"better than most of what is being reported"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Better" as in "more accurate."

From Gosling's report:

"They're saying "30 serious injuries" but I know that's a long way from the truth. At least that many died instantly in the impact."

Is that more accurate?

Re:"better than most of what is being reported"

[Anonymous Coward]

accuracy as in body count? From 3 to 15? The difference is that the media is relying on medical/ official reports whereas Gosslin is speculating on his first-hand account. Did he manually check the pulses of all the 30 "dead" people?

His report is peppered with incessant F-bombs. I'm glad he's ok, but I don't find his account any better than any other statements the police and FAA will be will gather from their interviews.

Re:"better than most of what is being reported"

[WuphonsReach]

"Better" as in "more accurate."

Far from accurate, go check KOLO's site (a local news station) or FoxReno. They've had better details then CNN within an hour of the event (CNN was still reporting the wrong information up to 2 hours after the crash).

Re:"better than most of what is being reported"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Better" as in "more accurate."

"Better" as in "like totally freaking right the fuck out man."

He's a little entitled to freak out I think but that still doesn't make his report better or more accurate.

Re:Thought the potential of crashes was the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

You totally misunderstand airshows.

Being *live* at the field when a F-(insert any number here) flys by is no match for any theatre surround sound. It's also just beautiful to watch these things move.

Then of course there are the antique aircraft. Yes, there are some "thrills" too, like wingwalking; but nobody wants to see a wingwalker die. I bet a significant portion of the crowd would like to try wingwalking just for the sheer experience of flying like a motorpowered bird on the outside.

A pity that some people can't see anything other than bloodsport in all this. Their loss.

Earlier Today

[Anonymous Coward]

and posted at 12:31am?
so this happened like 10 minutes ago?
damn thats the fastest slashdot has every picked up on a story !

Re:OT: moderator points??

[shadowofwind]

Although I don't have a high UID, I used to get a lot of mod points, but it stopped suddenly, and I haven't had any for several years. And I didn't post or moderate on whatever thread you're referring to.

Lost control?

[gregh76]

From the two videos I saw, it didn't look like the pilot lost control. It looks more like he attempted an inverted loop, but misjudged the amount of altitude he needed to complete it. Then again, I wasn't there.

Re:Lost control?

[dougmc]

From the two videos I saw, it didn't look like the pilot lost control. It looks more like he attempted an inverted loop, but misjudged the amount of altitude he needed to complete it.

Perhaps, but this was an air *race* -- there's no reason for him to do a loop.

Something went wrong before he went up like that.

Re:Lost control?

[Neon Aardvark]

Apparently their standard procedure in the case of loss of control is to try to gain some altitude and then attempt to fly or glide to the landing strip. So he might have been trying to do this before he totally lost control and it started to nose dive. Given that this was a race he was not trying to do a loop.

Re:OT: moderator points??

[Anonymous Coward]

He is talking about this thread of death, where all posts attached to it were moderated down to -1 by an anonymous admin and anyone who used mod points on the thread was banned from getting mod points ever again.

From Gosling's blog in case it goes down.

[leetrout]

I'm alive

Friday September 16, 2011

Just fucking barely. I'm at the air races in Reno with a bunch of friends and a horrific accident just happened. One of the very high end racers, going about 500 mph, lost control and nose dived straight into the audience. The news is currently saying that the plane missed the grandstand, but that's only technically true: in front of the grandstand there are several rows of box seats. It impacted right in the middle of them. I was in a box seat with my friends only 50 feet from the impact. I was watching the plane as it lost control, so I saw the whole thing. The impact happened so fast, there was hardly any sound: just one huge shock wave. No fireball. The plane, and many people, disintegrated instantly, right in front of me. There were bodies everywhere. No crash you've ever seen in a movie is even remotely authentic.

Update: it's already on YouTube. I was in the middle of the dust cloud you see around the impact. They're saying "30 serious injuries" but I know that's a long way from the truth. At least that many died instantly in the impact. I suspect that there were not a huge number of serious injuries. It was not a small airplane. You either died or you didn't. I didn't. My brother and I are still shaking.

Another Update: They're now officially calling it a "mass casualty situation". The plane was Galloping Ghost, piloted by Jimmy Leeward. It was a very cool, highly modified, P51 mustang with a very unusual approach to engine cooling. I doubt that this was at all connected to the accident - it looked like a control system failure.

Re:From Gosling's blog in case it goes down.

[Anonymous Coward]

A link with more details: http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/site/?pageid=event_desc&edis_id=VI-20110917-32358-USA

Re:From Gosling's blog in case it goes down.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but he just sounds like an idiot here. He's absolutely positive that at least 30 people died instantly? He doesn't think that there were a lot of major injuries, just dead people and safe people? I hope he's never an eyewitness to anything that has to go to court, because he is one lousy eyewitness.

Re:From Gosling's blog in case it goes down.

[Anonymous Coward]

Update: it's already on YouTube.

The video on YouTube is already down, it was against their "Terms Of Service".

Re:From Gosling's blog in case it goes down.

[Threni]

> They're saying "30 serious injuries" but I know that's a long way from the truth. At least that many
> died instantly in the impact. ...
> The impact happened so fast, there was hardly any sound: just one huge shock wave. No fireball.
> The plane, and many people, disintegrated instantly, right in front of me. There were bodies
> everywhere. No crash you've ever seen in a movie is even remotely authentic.

Sounds very exciting. But interestingly, the BBC is currently saying 3 deaths:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14957437

"Three people have died and scores are injured after an airplane crashed near a grandstand at an air race near Reno, Nevada, say medical officials." ...
"Earlier unconfirmed reports said up to 12 people might have been killed"

Probably going to go with the BBCs figures, to be honest.

Re:From Gosling's blog in case it goes down.

[hattig]

Having looked at the video and some photos, it looks like the plane crashed just in front of the boxed areas rather than inside.

But the shrapnel coming off the crash would surely have sliced anyone within 30ft to ribbons, and the boxed area was very busy. And there are some very organic looking lumps in the air in the photos too.

Re:From Gosling's blog in case it goes down.

[Anonymous Coward]

I got an email yesterday saying that there was a crash at the races. There are several of my close friends that go to the races each year and this email reported that all but one of my friends had reported in and that the one that had not checked in was seated in the box seat that were crashed into. I knew I needed to call my friend because if he was alive he would answer my call even if he was not answering any other calls. He answered and was very very shaken. He reported that the impact of the plane was 8 feet behind him. He said that there was no good reason for him to be alive and that there was bodies all around him, some dead and many more that were dismembered. About that time the phone went dead. I called the person that sent out the email and reported to him that our friend was alive and that he should send out another email to let everyone know he was fine.
Several minutes later my friend from the race called me back and continued telling me of his experience. He said that they were watching the Galloping Ghost as it left the race and how it went up and slowly rolled over and was coming right at them. He said that he and hid friend hit the deck and got as low as possible. I believe he said he was in the 3rd row of the Box seats. He said it got real quiet and that there was dust and deb-re through the air and he did not want to breath it and that there was some fluids from the plain that landed on him. He said that he was hit in the head by something big and that he had a head ache. He also had a laceration on the top of his head and that he had several people check him out later after some of the confusion and when help had arrived. When I was watching some of the videos of the crash, I seen him having his head examined. He said that after he realized he was ok he opened his eyes and checked on his friend, they looked at each other and both of them had minor lacerations but were alive. He kept saying over and over aging, there is no good reason for us to be alive. He said that many of his friend were seated behind him and that he was going to meet with them last night to figure out who was missing and get there details. He said that there were body parts all around him and that there was one person he knew that was sitting in front of him and someone had reported that he had been dismembered, I believe he said that he was missing a leg and arm.
Whale this report is not first hand, it is second hand and direct and honest. I am glad my friend is alive and here to tell his story.

Re:From Gosling's blog in case it goes down.

[Fnord666]

Sounds very exciting. But interestingly, the BBC is currently saying 3 deaths.

The accuracy of the news report is inversely proportional to the distance between the event and the audience. The number of injured or dead will be directly proportional to the distance.

Re:Thought the potential of crashes was the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all of the worst things about all of those.

Australia

[Dan East]

Just out of curiosity, why does this story link to an Australian news site for an event that happened in Nevada? That's one of the things I dislike about Google News, is it features articles from news sources geographically distant from the story (or worse, from "news" organizations like Xinhua). It's obvious they are getting the information 2nd and 3rd hand. So I'm curious why this news source was chosen from the hundreds of copy / pastes from an Associated Press (or similar) news feed.

Re:Australia

[toygeek]

Because the http://www.rgj.com/ Reno Gazette Journal Fishwrap and Cage Liner is a piece of crap. That's why.

I live in Sparks just north of Reno and south of Stead where the races are. I was talking to a neighbor outside when I heard a million sirens all at once. I went in, and heard the news. What a mess.

Glad you're alright James. A friend of mine was going to go to the races today and decided to go four wheeling instead. He's glad he did.

Re:Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the Reno Gazette Journal Fishwrap and Cage Liner is a piece of crap. That's why.

That's pretty damning given the link is to the Daily Terror - one of the worst Australian rags.

Video

[kid_wonder]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs98xkTIBQU
about the 3:30 mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zusClmg4IQg
about the :30 second mark

Horrible looking, but amazingly not an explosion.

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

As I've seen other people say: Movies don't even come close. Even though the videos don't show the entire impact, you just get this sick feeling. You know a bunch of people just got seriously messed up. What a nightmare.

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

Horrible looking, but amazingly not an explosion.

No shit. It's not a jet with tons of jet fuel. It's a fucking prop plane.

Movies have really ruined people's understanding of how physics works.

Re:Video

[artor3]

You mean to tell me cars don't erupt into fireballs after falling down a thirty foot cliff?? Next you'll be telling me that explosions generally don't involve fireballs at all!

Re:Video

[seyyah]

Horrible looking, but amazingly not an explosion.

Serious questions here: should we expect a plane like this to explode on impact?

Re:Video

[lexsird]

They have to understand how physics works first before you can ruin it, right?

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.livestream.com/loadedtv/video?clipId=pla_b2efcd7d-ed04-4edf-89e8-f21ff436ccb4
accident is around 38mins in but be warned its very graphic/gorey :(

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really, the only explosive bit in a plane is the fuel; and a racing plane would want to carry as little of that as possible to save on weight.

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

Horrible looking, but amazingly not an explosion.

Serious questions here: should we expect a plane like this to explode on impact?

It pretty much only happens in the movies, real life accidents are just deadly, not flashy and deadly.

Re:Video

[Black Parrot]

Horrible looking, but amazingly not an explosion.

Serious questions here: should we expect a plane like this to explode on impact?

Only if you've ever seen a movie.

BTW, condolences to the injured & bereaved.

Re:Video

[statusbar]

Also relevant photos showing the airplane was damaged before impact: missing elevator

Another photo series: impact

--jeffk++

Re:Video

[Ragondux]

I saw a motorbike erupt in a fireball after it crashed into a car. In real life. Now I'm no longer being pedantic about stuff that happens only in movies.

Re:Video

[Chris Mattern]

Horrible looking, but amazingly not an explosion.

If your experience with vehicle crashes is limited to the movies, you should know that explosions are actually much rarer in real life.

Re:Video

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Some of the worst camera work ever!

Re:Video

[Richard_at_work]

Movie? Depends on what you call an explosion...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-sp2k68T2I&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG4mCvUfpsk&feature=related

Both of those videos depict what most people would expect an aircraft crash to be like, basically a big ball of flame.

Re:Video

[Richard_at_work]

And yet amazingly they do happen all the time in high energy aircraft crashes - see the links I posted above (and I can post a lot more).

Re:Video

[taiwanjohn]

None of the videos I've seen thus have a good view of the accident, which is a bit surprising, given the number of people in the audience and the ubiquity of cameras these days. Perhaps some others will surface in the coming days. It may help in determining the cause.

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

The most horrible is the first video, the woman crying "Jimmy, Jimmy, oh my Jimmy"... the pilot's name...

Re:Video

[Goldenhawk]

In this case, consider the fire triangle: fuel, heat, oxygen.

Fuel? Maybe. In an air race, the lighter the plane the faster the plane, since more weight = more lift and more lift = more drag. So the planes are as lightly loaded on fuel as possible. Halfway or more thru the race, the remaining fuel is even lower; these planes burn it fairly quickly at high throttle. The stock fuel capacity of a P-51D Mustang is 269 gallons; this plane probably had about a quarter of that at impact.
http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/survivors/pages/44-15651.shtml
This article says another famous P-51 racer (Dago Red) carries 150 gal of 180-octane avgas at takeoff.
http://machinedesign.com/article/unlimited-air-racers-the-ultimate-hot-rods-1103

Oxygen? Plenty.

Heat? Lots in the area of the engine, not so much elsewhere. Also, the heat has to be in a place it can ignite the fuel/oxygen mix. If the fuel has not been properly mixed with oxygen, no amount of heat will ignite it. At the speed that airplane hit the pavement, the engine probably embedded itself a couple feet deep in tarmac before the fuel even began to vaporize, so most of the hot metal was out of the picture.

180 octane is ridiculously high (160 is probably a more realistic number); it's actually designed to be very hard to ignite inside the engine, so that the pistons are not destroyed by early ignition due to the extreme compression at which these engines run. I don't know how that relates to an impact-caused vapor cloud, however.

Finally, this doesn't exclude an explosion; it was still POSSIBLE, but some good fortune was involved. Not a pretty day for anyone involved, but it could have been even worse if it HAD ignited.

Re:Video

[Reservoir Penguin]

Is this the PG-13 version? There is no shot of the impact and maybe one shot with two people lying on the ground, not quite the bloody mess with 30+ dead Gosling describes.

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally racing airplanes just use just enough fuel to finish the race plus a little more for reserve. If it was toward the end of the race then there wouldn't be much fuel left, so even though they use high octane fuel there might not be an explosion.

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know all the specs on that plane, but considering it has a V-12 1500+ HP engine that probably burns fuel at a rate of 50+ gallons per hour, I too am somewhat relieved that there wasn't an explosion.

Here are some generic specs on the P51-D, but his was apparently heavily modified:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang#P-51D_Mustang

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not a missing elevator. Its a missing elevator trim-tab. A trim tab is used to take pressure off of the controls. Full control can be maintained with a missing trim tab though it would certainly be a handful; especially at the reported 500MPH speeds. You see, as planes go faster or slower, it changes the amount of positive and/or negative pressure required on the stick. Use of the trim tab allows the pilot take that pressure off of the pilot. Basically a trim tab is a labor saver for pilots in that it allows the pilot to use far less effort to control the aircraft; as in fingers rather than arms. And the picture there, while it does look like the trim tab is missing, may have actually been fully deployed into a position such that it simply looks like its missing.

Really, the more telling part of the picture isn't the "missing" trim tab, its that the pilot isn't visible in the cockpit. To me, it by far, suggests something happened to the elderly pilot who may have simply slumped over and loss control from either a high-G turn, an aneurism, or a heart attack.In fact, if you look at the image, you see little control surface deflection which strongly hints the pilot is not controlling the aircraft at all.

My bet is on a dead or unconscious pilot before it ever hit the ground.

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

Or if you have a clue about airplanes you would know there might have been 250+ gallons of high octane av-gas in there when it exploded. But sure, take your limited experience and skepticism as ultimate fact.

Re:Video

[bill_mcgonigle]

The most horrible is the first video, the woman crying "Jimmy, Jimmy, oh my Jimmy"... the pilot's name...

"Oh, the humanity."

I guess that's what it really means.

Re:Video

[bill_mcgonigle]

Sadly, there's probably a flash chip among the debris at the crash site with HD video on it. If a hundred people were killed or injured some of them were shooting video. I doubt we'll ever see it.

Re:Video

[Threni]

I saw 9/11, and both planes there exploded. I'd expect large, fast, hot, heavy things full of fuel to explode, but what do I know?

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an aerospace engineer and I don't believe that the missing trim tab is to blame. Trim tabs are there to 'trim' from steady level flight during cruise so the pilot does not have to hold an off neutral stick - think of it as the equivalent a steering alignment on your car. Also these planes are meant to handle 8+ Gs, It would be difficult for an aerodynamic (inertial) maneuver to displace a landing gear accidentally, i suspect some cockpit interaction with controls, perhaps a last second panic or black out.

That said, all of the above is only some educated observation, eventually a real analysis of the crash will show what truly happened

Re:Video

[ivoras]

Horrible looking, but amazingly not an explosion.

Hmmm... it looks like the conspiracy theorists should review the Pentagon 9/11 crash :)

Re:Video

[Falconhell]

In a racing aeroplane, the CG would be setup to have the trim at neutral at full speed for minmum drag. I doubt there was any great load on the trim tab, as it would slow the plane considerably.

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true only at a single speed. For every other speed, it likely will require deflection - especially when ready to land or at lower speeds. If the cg is moved aft, it likely requires considerable attention during non-full speed maneuvers and/or AOA.

Re:Thought the potential of crashes was the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this guy up!

80 year old pilot

[Zebai]

Am I the only one who finds it strange that an 80 year old man was permitted to fly high speed low altitude stunts at an air show? Most people that age have difficulty driving cars. I wouldn't care if the man knew more about flying than any man alive reaction speed and strength diminish with age its a fact of life.

Re:80 year old pilot

[Jeremi]

Most people that age have difficulty driving cars.

I guess it needs to be pointed out that the pilot was an individual, not "most people". Different people age at different rates. If the pilot's health and faculties were good, then they were good, regardless of what other 80 year olds are like.

That said, I hope that all pilots in events like these (and in fact, all pilots period) are required to undergo regular physical exams.

Re:80 year old pilot

[narkosys]

not sure how it works in the US but here in Canada pilots have to take a medical once a year, twice a year if over the age of 40. They also add more tests, such as hearing tests and ECGs on a more regular basis as you get older.

P

Re:80 year old pilot

[Anonymous Coward]

It's starting to sound like a mechanical failure (certainly believable when you're flying an antique). It looks like his experience might have actually helped him move away from the main stands:

"I was there and I saw him clearly headed straight into the crowd, then made a last minute control input that moved slightly the nose slightly toward the tarmac, away from the stands. It hit right at the front (in the front rows of the chairs or hopefully missed the seats by a few feet) nose in. It was hard to tell exactly where it went in, even though I saw it. Seemed power was still full on. Terrible..but I think he made a heroic effort to miss the crowd, best he could."

"I'd like to add from my vantage point (front row 100 yards further down to the right) I was able to see the plane make one last second effort to miss going straight into the stand and it hit just at the front instead. I believe the pilot was a hero and did all he could to get away from the crowds with a broken airplane."

Re:80 year old pilot

[digitalchinky]

Not to denigrate the pilot or even you, but you are incorrect and just making stuff up. The images in this link show that the pilot was not visible in the cockpit so he couldn't have seen the crowd at all. http://framework.latimes.com/2011/09/17/reno-air-races-crash/

Re:80 year old pilot

[DNS-and-BIND]

First, he was 74, not 80. I don't know where you get that bullshit. Second, the crash was due to mechanical failure. See photo here. Third, you think maybe because the guy is living life, racing fighter planes, is why he's above ground at the age of 74 when many of his peers are six feet under or pissing themselves at nursing homes? He passed the physical exams with flying colors, which include reflexes and eyesight. I'm sure he would be the first to disqualify himself if he felt even the least bit unworthy to fly.

Yes, you're the only one who thinks it's strange. Asshole.

Re:80 year old pilot

[Dunbal]

Still doesn't rule out a medical emergency. I'm a doc and people die at our hospital all the time... it's called "shit happens". Tests detect a lot, but they can't detect everything.

Re:80 year old pilot

[Dunbal]

I guess people making up these heroic/romantic stories are more tolerable than the 9/11 controlled demolition crowd...

Re:80 year old pilot

[segedunum]

Additionally, given that this is a race and not a sedate, formulaic air display, where you are pushing yourself physically with the G forces involved I am lost for words that someone this old is being passed to fly in it...... It's plain stupidity.

Re:80 year old pilot

[Nehmo]

Am I the only one who finds it strange that an 80 year old man was permitted to fly high speed low altitude stunts at an air show? Most people that age have difficulty driving cars. I wouldn't care if the man knew more about flying than any man alive reaction speed and strength diminish with age its a fact of life.

I completely agree. Indeed, in the analysis, the pilot's age stands out glaringly. We really don't need to look any further for the "cause" of the crash. [(This is off topic.) But don't feel flattered. I have something else to say. I don't like the trite sarcastic introductory element "Am I the only one who...". ]

Re:80 year old pilot

[Reservoir Penguin]

This is silly and irrational. He passed an only objective test of ones ability and got the highest class medical rating. The numbers are irrelevant, nowadays it's not uncommon to see heart attacks and strokes in people barely out of their 20s.

Re:80 year old pilot

[zyzko]

Yes. Flying can be done safely by elderly people and they can enjoy it greatly, but it is 2 different things to do it for recreation or to race with spectators watching.

Remember - this is not a glider or some simple Cessna/Piper small commuter plane - this is a very high performance fighter which is probably even more difficult to fly in this (race) context than a modern fly-by-wire fighter. And still fighter pilots retire today at guite younger age than at 74 for a reason.

This is terrible tragedy, and no doubt the guy was a professional and did everything he could to prevent casulties - even maybe at the cost of his own life. But he should not have been in the cockpit in a race.

Re:80 year old pilot

[sznupi]

What we know for certain is that he was a man behind the controls of a machine which took away, for many other people, ability of "living life" to the fullest. I guess that makes him, by your own criteria, a huge asshole.

And "mechanical failures" in those areas of aircraft are known to happen also when the pilot fails to realize that what he's trying to do - say, with too violent for the speed steering inputs - goes beyond the limits of construction.

Re:80 year old pilot

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a doc and people die at our hospital all the time... it's called "shit happens".

Just, wow.

Re:80 year old pilot

[gatkinso]

Seems that the 64 year old plane was the problem, not the 74 year old pilot.

Re:80 year old pilot

[geekoid]

everyone ages at the same god damn rate. Somepeople are healthier then others.

Re:80 year old pilot

[geekoid]

"because the guy is living life"

Tell that to the 8 people this guy killed.

"He passed the physical exams with flying colors, which include reflexes and eyesight"
citation needed.

" I'm sure he would be the first to disqualify himself "
People are the worse judge if they are able to operate a machine. Every try to take the keys away form an 70 year old person who clearly should not be driving? Add someone with a pilots ego and they would be a terrible judge.

I am not saying he was ill or not able to fly, only that your reasoning is flawed.

Finally, it IS strange he was piloting. Not wrong or suspicious, just strange.

Re:80 year old pilot

[Dunbal]

What you think it's all drama and tension like on "ER" or House? We do our job, we do the best we can, but sometimes people are just going to die. If I lost sleep over it I wouldn't be able to do my job. No, what makes me lose sleep is one day not doing my job properly - because then it becomes my fault.

Re:80 year old pilot

[Anonymous Coward]

Article in summary cited 80 so I didn't just round his age myself

Re:80 year old pilot

[segedunum]

Like I've already said, it doesn't matter how many tests he passes. The physical nature of racing in such an event just cannot be underestimated. Racing these planes is very physically intensive and it demands a huge amount of your neck muscles and your core fitness. People getting heart attacks and strokes in their 20s is irrelevant. More people get those problems in their 70s.

Re:80 year old pilot

[Reservoir Penguin]

You are a stubborn and irrational fool then. A medical test is the only objective measure of ones health and fitness for a physically demanding occupation.

Re:80 year old pilot

[nukenerd]

Jeremi wrote :

I guess it needs to be pointed out that the pilot was an individual, not "most people".

He might be an individual, but he still does not escape the facts of human biology.

As you get older the arteries harden and blood vessels (notably inside the brain) become less elastic. This makes them more prone to failure in situations where the blood pressure rises. This would include subjection to higher g-forces for example. In fact failure can occur at any time, even without a pressure pulse, which is why old people suddenly have strokes. A "medical" can measure blood pressure, but does not measure the elasticity of blood vessels - you would need to take a tissue sample and put it in a test machine for that.

A man of 74 should not be piloting an aircraft with acrobatic capability. Full stop. Makes no difference what the crash cause was in this case.

In the UK it increasingly difficult to get car insurance beyond this age, let alone fly an acrobatic plane.

Re:80 year old pilot

[Ol Olsoc]

Okay, so I guess you will turn in your drivers license when you turn 74? Even if you check out physically okay? Better yet, turn them in at 50 - you never know when a person can be hit by early Alzheimer's, and run into a crowd of people, killing 8 of them. They would be just a dead as this guy's "victims".

Airshows are pretty dangerous places for both Pilots and spectators. People have been killed by accidents, by pilots who were young, middle aged, and old.

Would it have not been strange for a young pilot to be in this crash?

It appears that it was a mechanical problem anyhow, so your speculation smacks of ageism.

Altitude is your friend

[Anonymous Coward]

The first thing any air racer does at the first sign of mechanical trouble is a steep climb. It gets you out of the race, and more importantly altitude is your friend. It gives you time to recover and sort out the problem. I suspect what happened here was he started the standard emergency climb and then lost all power or otherwise catastrophically failed. He just happened to be pointed the wrong way at that time :(

Re:Altitude is your friend

[arikol]

Pictures show the elevator trim tab broken off. At those speeds the aircraft needs significant nose down force to stay level, and if the trim tab breaks off then the aircraft will nose up violently (and violently at 4-500 mph is a violent action indeed). It is quite possible that he suddenly hit between 5-9 Gs (my bet is in the higher part of the range) while unprepared. The human body can't do anything in those conditions. Quite different if those forces are expected and you can prepare through breathing and muscle contraction, but he probably got smacked down and possibly slammed his head into the instrument panel (as this was on the straight which is a place for going through and changing settings, the easy and fun part of the race).
Broken trim tab:
http://external.ak.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQD53IBQjMbO0oqC&w=90&h=90&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.graytvinc.com%2Fimages%2Fplane%2Benlarged.jpg
No pilot showing in canopy during dive:
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2011/09/16/us/20110917_RENO-IPAD-4.html

Re:Altitude is your friend

[thogard]

I expect that plane was modified to run that race which means its neutral trim position would be for the high speed part of the course which would imply that not having it wouldn't have much effect. However the effect when it came off could feel like an aileron problem by inducing a bank and some odd yawing. If that banking was countered and then the trim tab went away, it would help explain the barrel roll. The P-51 also has wide elevator deflection range and it looks neutral in some of the pictures and I would have expected it to be full up if the pilot had any choice. The tail wheel being out is evidence for some unusual forces on the tail of the plane. On a stock P-51, the tail wheel can be extended and doing a high G climb once the lock is released.

Re:Altitude is your friend

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. The pictures show no pilot in the canopy at various times after the plane went off course. Smacked his head, broke his neck ... He was dead or unconscious and was not aware of the series of events after the malfunction to the time of impact. The plane flew itself into the ground. Nothing heroic about it.

I like the idea of WW II aircraft being flown. Having said that, it takes a lot of respect to do so safely. What a shame. People killed, lives ruined and a priceless object destroyed.

Re:Altitude is your friend

[arikol]

Not really. The trim knob/indicator and the trim tab are two separate things. The only way to get a perfectly neutral setting of the elevator itself is to set the angle of incidence of the horizontal stabiliser itself for a certain speed. Otherwise you will always need to deflect the elevator itself, which you do using the trim tab. The trim knob/indicator may be set to represent neutral on the long, fast straight, but at the area of the highest speed the aircraft will fairly probably have a strong pitch up tendency. If not, then it will have an EXTREME pitch down tendency at low speeds. Sadly I cannot base this on experience in a real P-51, only on general piloting experience and playing around in a pretend P-51 in a flight sim, which certainly isn't the real thing :/ (and right about now my head is full of wishful thinking..)

They probably just trim the plane for the speed, way simplest and safest. It's not that extreme a setting as the plane is designed for high speed to begin with (they went faster on these planes in dives during WWII, even into the transonic range).

But yes,there are clear indicators that high g-forces were encountered, and I am quite certain that they were unintentional. That seems to favour a strong, unexpected pitch up.

Interesting Eye Witness Description.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to make light of the situation, but an eye witness describing the event on Australian radio mentioned at one point that the airplane was travelling slightly above the vertical.

Re:Interesting Eye Witness Description.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, not completely vertical, but slightly above that. I.e. right side up, instead of below vertical which would be inverted flight.

Re:Thought the potential of crashes was the point.

[TxRv]

That's a big part of it. Thing is, usually the pilots try not to crash into the crowd.

Only airshow I ever went to I saw a biplane smash right into the ground.

Re:OT: moderator points??

[Z00L00K]

It's probably because too few of your posts have been awarded with positive mod points before they expired again.

Post more, and with posts that get positive moderations.

12 were killed?

[Anonymous Coward]

no clear how the story figures the crash "killed at least 12 spectators". The links all say 3 were killed.
Bumping it up to 12 deaths is a 300% increase over the deaths in all of the other stories, including the linked article.

Re:Frist post :(

[Forty Two Tenfold]

What I'm pissed about is that we're fed imaginary crashes, gore and "reality" daily and lo! the REAL reality, the real gore is immediately banned from youtube and such. Oh, the hypocrisy.

Re:Thought the potential of crashes was the point.

[artor3]

Only in the sense that the potential of a disaster is what makes roller coasters fun. People greatly enjoy near disaster. It's exciting. But when it turns into actual disaster, it's horrifying. Another example is NASCAR races. Crashes are exciting, but only because the safety systems in the cars are robust enough to keep the drivers and fans safe. Nobody wants to see someone killed.

Re:OT: moderator points??

[iamhassi]

I got mod points twice this week. Think it has to do with your comments being rated up. Whenever my comments hit +5 the mod points come within a few days. That makes sense, those that others think are writing good comments are probably the best people to pick as moderators, then they go out and rate up comments which make those people moderators, etc.

Video: Another link

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stv5d79aP7A same video, additional link

Sad all around, people and sport

[spopepro]

The air races have always been risky. Everyone knew that very well. Think about what would happen if every auto racing mishap resulted in sharp acceleration until collision with some other solid object. There have been crashes and deaths in the past, but this is really tragic as most mishaps happen far away from the grandstands.

It may be insensitive, but I'm actually most sad over losing another plane. For years there's been speculation that unlimited class racing's days were numbered. Not enough planes and parts, not enough pilots, not enough mechanics. But the unlimited class is what captures the imagination. Lefty in White Lightning, Hinton in the Red Baron, Tiger in Strega... I connected with the old warbirds and their pilots in ways that I kind of don't have words for right now.

I'm sad for the injured and dead, but I'm devastated over what feels like the end of an era.

Re:Sad all around, people and sport

[Anonymous Coward]

It is rare to read an "X is dead" post on /. and get choked up... at least for me. It is all devastating. The dreams of the air and space frontiers - those were our dreams and probably won't be seen culturally again.

I vote for retirement air-ships. We can all sail off into the sunset. A Wooden Ships goodbye for the age of wondering flight.

Re:OT: moderator points??

[lexsird]

Can we opt out of them? They pile up if I don't use them it seems. I hate to mod unless it's really, really over the top AND off topic. And I don't want to go on a modding spree where I just spew them out at some poor thread, nor do I want to be letting my own bias take over and start modding. I just ignore them anymore and if I got them I will use them, sparingly. The last 20 or so just expired. You would think they wouldn't give me anymore being I don't spend them. Of course you get the various really cool posts that need a mod up, but they tend to already be modded, so why pile on?

It's a good system, don't get me wrong. I am just an Indian, not a chief.

Re:OT: moderator points??

[lexsird]

I don't read things unless it interests me, and if it interests me I have an opinion. When I have an opinion, good or bad, I want to express it. That is the beauty of forums, nobody is talking over you, or slapping you upside of the head to shut you up. Hire kids and put them in charge while they know it all, I say. Indians have all the fun, the chief has to fret and worry.

Re:Thought the potential of crashes was the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

People go to the Air Races because they like planes, not because they want to see a crash.

What happened to the setback and trajectory regs?

[SuperBanana]

US Airshows specifically prohibit any trajectories towards crowds and have large setback distances from the "box" that the display is allowed in, specifically for this reason. Clearly neither was being followed, or this crash wouldn't have killed and maimed so many people.

Was the race allowed to weasel out of those regs by not calling itself an airshow, even though that's exactly what it is?

http://www.proairshow.com/What%20to%20say.htm

"Since current regulations were put into effect in 1952, there has never been a spectator fatality in an North American air show accident. Thatâ(TM)s a safety record that is he envy of the entire motor sports industry."

So much for that record. The same page says:

"Second, air show performers â" both civilian and military â" are prohibited from performing maneuvers that direct the energy of their aircraft toward the area in which the spectators are sitting."

So much for that rule.

"Third, the industry and regulatory authorities strictly enforce minimum set-back distances that were developed to ensure that, in the event of an accident, pieces of the aircraft will not end up in the spectator area."

So much for that rule.

I hope the FAA employees, airshow promoters, and airport employees who approved the airshow plan are all charged criminally. Sadly, that'll never happen....

Re:Frist post :(

[lexsird]

If there is anything to autopsy it will be interesting to see if it was a medical condition that caused him to crash. Chances are it was mechanical. He's a pilot, meaning he's probably been one all of his life and is (was) in better condition at 80ish that most of us here posting. They only put the really fit one in those planes because ones like the Mustang were hard to fly. It's something about the mad amount of engine power wanting to turn the entire plane a certain direction.

Also this was a race, air shows put on dangerous stunts to "WOW" the crowd, low flybys and things like that. This was a race, meaning it has a "race track" and should by all means be a degree safer to spectate than an air show. It was probably one of those freaky things of things and people all being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't think it was evil or someone should be to blame, it's just sad and tragic.

CIVILIANS JUST DON'T SEE WHAT WE'VE SEEN !!

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't go to a movie to remember, we go to =- whup !! exit from -- reality !! Oh, well, at least he didn't claim "God was looking after me" !! "Saved me for a reason" !! "God didn't pick little green apples" !! because, actually, "God is gonna get you for that" !!

Re:OT: moderator points??

[Anonymous Coward]

I always had mod points. One day my mod points just shut off even though my excellent karma hadn't changed. AFAIK, nothing else changed either. I was meta-moderating a lot, but I had always done that. I have moments of refreshing particular threads, but I had always done that too (and not doing it didn't change anything.) I post about 50/50 as AC, but I had always done that as well, and those posts were generally positively moderated as well.

I know folks like you were blacklisted, but I don't think it was reserved for just that thread. I left for a long time and have just come back so I don't know when/if I'll get more points if they got rid of the blacklist.

Re:OT: moderator points??

[blue trane]

Yeah I haven't had mod points since modding up something in that thread!

Re:Frist post :(

[Jeremi]

lo! the REAL reality, the real gore is immediately banned from youtube and such. Oh, the hypocrisy.

Is it hypocrisy, or is it respect for the families of the victims, who might not want to have mangled pieces of their loved ones served up as entertainment for the masses just yet?

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[Anonymous Coward]

The plane turned off course. For what reason, nobody yet knows. Since a fully-fueled P-51 can fly for hours, by your reasoning the entire city of Reno would have had to have been evacuated in order to hold the races.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[yodleboy]

jeeez. watch the video. See allllll the other planes flying past well away from the spectators and in a COMPLETELY different trajectory than the one that crashes? I'd say they were following the rules. The real question here isn't who was in charge that can be sued. The question is why the hell was this one plane coming from way out of left field? I mean, really, had he not crashed, he'd have been flying OVER the crowd to keep in the race. The pilot must have turned waayyyy wide at the last pylon. Maybe sticky ailerons or rudder? They mention the guy was 74 years old, you certainly can't rule out a heart attack or stroke causing him to be this far off course.

Horrible judgement on the part of the pilot if it wasn't medical. You can have all the rules you want, but only the guy in the cockpit can really enforce them. RIP to all that died.

videos

[drwho]

yeah, I could wait for rotten.com but I'd rather people posted links to videos here. I am really annoyed that youtobe/google takes it upon themselves to decide what is fit for me to see, or not see. I am sure it was horrible. I've seen horrible. I just want the truth.

mechanical failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Supposedly the crash was due to a problem with the "elevator trim tab", whatever that is.
http://corduroyplanet.blogspot.com/2011/09/chilled.html

Re:mechanical failure

[fbjon]

It's a small elevator on the large elevator. The elevator control surface is the horizontal tail which controls pitch (up-down), and the trim tab is a strip of separately controllable surface on the tail edge of the elevator (or other control surface), which gives the pilot the ability to semi-permanently give the plane an up/down bias (or left/right roll or rudder bias). Since it's part of the surface, if the trim tab disappears, the surface won't work as designed any more, and might be more unstable. In particular, only the left-hand side tab seems to have gone, which might mean that the trim setting would be unbalanced, possibly giving the left elevator more lift than the right, and so possibly causing the plane to roll right (among other things).

Re:mechanical failure

[zyzko]

It doesn't necessarily might became unstable - the main function of trimming is to get the force smaller at the controls on desired speed / attitude. Otherwhise especially on old planes with hardwired (by wires or pushbars) controls in different speeds you would have to work hard to keep the plane level; pilots do use it also to give up-down bias (so that at "neutral" position the plane tends to climb or dive) but the main purpose is to lessen the control forces that you don't have to "fight" the plane in order to stay level at selected speed. And I imagine that on this kind of plane (old warbird with steroids) accidentally losing trim at race speeds can be quite of a surprise.

Re:mechanical failure

[fbjon]

Well that's all the same thing, really. If the trim is level with the surface, the plane will tend to climb or descend depending on airspeed/power setting, and introducing a bias compensates. And I meant that when the trim tab is ripped out on just one side for whatever reason, that would make the controls unstable.

Re:mechanical failure

[Cosgrach]

Trim tabs are often found on only one side. Its specif use is to reduce the amount of force used to move the control surface. Also, if properly trimmed the aircraft will fly straight and level 'hands-off', and altitude can be easily controlled simply by making adjustments on the throttle.

Just how many pilots are in here anyway? I am.

Re:mechanical failure

[fbjon]

Good point, didn't think of that. IANAP, but it seems the P-51 has trim tabs on both sides, based on photos.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[jklovanc]

There is a huge difference between an unlimited air race and a display airshow. Display airshows are flown ate relatively slow speeds nowhere near the 500mph of unlimited racers

"Second, air show performers â" both civilian and military â" are prohibited from performing maneuvers that direct the energy of their aircraft toward the area in which the spectators are sitting."

The race course is parallel to the runway so clause has been followed. The issue is that a 500mph unlimited racer with control issues can come down miles away from where the control problem happened and in any direction. They don't usually just fall out of the sky like display aircraft. Even if the planned direction was not toward the audience there is no way of knowing where an aircraft with control problems will come down.

"Third, the industry and regulatory authorities strictly enforce minimum set-back distances that were developed to ensure that, in the event of an accident, pieces of the aircraft will not end up in the spectator area."

That only works if the aircraft crashes under the planned flight path. If it veers off course due to a control problem this is moot.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[Shag]

US Airshows specifically prohibit any trajectories towards crowds and have large setback distances from the "box" that the display is allowed in, specifically for this reason.

I presume this prohibition does not apply to shows at military bases?

Or at least, does not apply to the Blue Angels?

Or at the very least, does not apply to Fat Albert?

Re:Frist post :(

[Anonymous Coward]

Hypocrisy.

YouTube has no problem breaking their own rules when people post violent, gory videos that serve the US foreign interests, such as victims of Gadhafi or Assad's foot-soldiers.

Or do their families not matter because "they're just brown people"?

Re:OT: moderator points??

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you disagreed with one of the editors. Michael Sims banned me when I complained that one of my rejected submissions appeared word for word under Roland Pricknail's name.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope the FAA employees, airshow promoters, and airport employees who approved the airshow plan are all charged criminally.

As well they should be, provided they approved the aircraft going out of control.

Re:Frist post :(

[psergiu]

It was a mechanical failure:

http://corduroyplanet.blogspot.com/2011/09/chilled.html

Seems that the pilot had the option to eject but he stayed and tried to handle the plane out of the crowd.

Re:Frist post :(

[MichaelSmith]

I don't really have a problem with them flying somewhere but flying that close to people on the ground is very stupid.

Security

[Anonymous Coward]

Where was TSA? Didn't they background check the pilot?

Re:Frist post :(

[digitalchinky]

Although youtube seem to be deleting accounts that post the video, it is still available on sites like liveleak.com (formerly ogrish, but very toned down these days) so if it was the somewhat raw and uncensored version of life that you prefer, then it wont be going anywhere.

Re:Thought the potential of crashes was the point.

[shutdown -p now]

For that matter, looking down the barrels of A-10 Gatling cannon close up is well worth it alone (from my own experience at Abbotsford in 2009).

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[Anonymous Coward]

This military has it's own rules which are considerably more strict than civilians. Of course that's to be expected when you are dealing with planes that will go 1.5-2x the speed of sound without really trying.

Moral dilemma:

[Anonymous Coward]

This is yet another incident resulting in death where a seemingly large number of people were involved in shooting Youtube video or snapping photos when the spectators could have provided assistance to the injured.

I was present during a multi-car pileup with two rollovers in 2006 in front of a Borders in Fort Lauderdale where an older male was trapped upside down in his Lexus SUV that was leaking gas onto the tarmac, while approx. 20 persons where huddled around the vehicle shooting cell phone video (and giggling, etc.) and not a single person made any effort to rescue the trapped person.

I approached the scene and kicked the window out, placed his floor mats on the pavement (due to glass), and extracted him from his vehicle. One other individual (previously shooting video) assisted in the extraction.

The individual in the SUV later complained about breaking the window, etc. (even through his vehicle was totaled), and threatened a lawsuit (me).

There is some serious desensitization taking place and I feel social media may be the catalyst.

Contrast this to another accident where I was present on the German Autobahn traveling from Amsterdam to Frankfurt where an individual jackknifed his boat trailer and probably 30 other motorists pulled over immediately to render aid to the driver and remove the trailer and vehicle from the motorway by hand.

I don't know if this is strictly an American phenomenon as the Autobahn incident occurred probably 10 years ago - but the German motorists weren't concerned about lawyers or Youtube during the accident, but were focused on the victim and clearing the motorway first and foremost (not lawyers).

 

Re:Moral dilemma:

[bky1701]

This is yet another incident resulting in death where a seemingly large number of people were involved in shooting Youtube video or snapping photos when the spectators could have provided assistance to the injured.

There were several hundred people already there. Had everyone present "helped" the injured, they would have been trampled to death.

The individual in the SUV later complained about breaking the window, etc. (even through his vehicle was totaled), and threatened a lawsuit (me). There is some serious desensitization taking place and I feel social media may be the catalyst.

You go and give a story in which the real cause is readily apparent (nay, the moral), and then blame social media?

German motorists weren't concerned about lawyers or Youtube during the accident, but were focused on the victim and clearing the motorway first and foremost (not lawyers).

Are you implying that lawyers are caused by youtube? Vice-versa? Your argument is entirely incoherent; what relationship exists between lawyers, social media, and people not trampling the injured?

Re:Moral dilemma:

[Stiletto]

I was present during a multi-car pileup with two rollovers in 2006 in front of a Borders in Fort Lauderdale where an older male was trapped upside down in his Lexus SUV that was leaking gas onto the tarmac, while approx. 20 persons where huddled around the vehicle shooting cell phone video (and giggling, etc.) and not a single person made any effort to rescue the trapped person.

I approached the scene and kicked the window out, placed his floor mats on the pavement (due to glass), and extracted him from his vehicle. One other individual (previously shooting video) assisted in the extraction.

The individual in the SUV later complained about breaking the window, etc. (even through his vehicle was totaled), and threatened a lawsuit (me).

You're lucky you didn't get sued. What were you thinking? What if you injured him while "just trying to help"? You're setting yourself up for major liability, unless you manage to successfully hide behind a "Good Samaritan" law. It's safest to stay out of it. Walk on by, sit back and take some video, but for god sake don't get involved.

If I'm in an accident, I hope bystanders have the good sense to mind their own business and keep their hands off of me unless they're a doctor or EMT.

Re:Moral dilemma:

[DNS-and-BIND]

Here's a moral dilemma for you. You are a journalist, on the docks down by the river taking some photos. It's a nice day, partly cloudy, about 1pm. A man floats by, screaming for help, obviously drowning. If you had the choice between taking a Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph of the man drowning, or throwing the man a rope, which shutter speed and setting would you use?

Re:Moral dilemma:

[snowgirl]

You're lucky you didn't get sued. What were you thinking? What if you injured him while "just trying to help"? You're setting yourself up for major liability, unless you manage to successfully hide behind a "Good Samaritan" law. It's safest to stay out of it. Walk on by, sit back and take some video, but for god sake don't get involved.

If I'm in an accident, I hope bystanders have the good sense to mind their own business and keep their hands off of me unless they're a doctor or EMT.

More specifically, the best thing a bystander can usually do is call the police, or whatever other emergency personnel they can. The people who are used to dealing with emergencies can help you out.

"zOMG! THE SUV WAS LEAKING PETROL ONTO THE TARMAC!!!" When I crashed my motorcycle really bad, a bunch of people were all "omg! GAS!!!" and this is the most stupid response ever, which is a result of everyone watching movies and internalizing that as common sense. Gas will not explode, it will hardly even catch fire. The person was in no greater danger from the leaking gas than from some bystander attempting to move him out of the car and making a fractured neck worse.

Same crash for me as above, the bystanders came running up, called the police, and told me not to move. They were good bystanders... well, except for freaking out about the gas thing. I wanted to yell at them, but I figured I were better to not yell at people and just wait patiently for medical care. (Turns out, beyond some road rash, nothing was wrong, but better safe than sorry.)

Re:Moral dilemma:

[plaukas pyragely]

If I'm in an accident, I hope bystanders have the good sense to mind their own business and keep their hands off of me unless they're a doctor or EMT.

Try sharing your opinion with the guy rescued in this video ;)

Re:Moral dilemma:

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's the thing -- I'm not an EMT, but I'm an Army medic (just back from Iraq two weeks prior and on leave at home) so I was "stupid" for exposing myself needlessly to this liability and rendering aid.

If I possessed some type of civilian certification such as a CPR card (~8 hours training) I might be afforded some relief as a good Samaritan. Lacking this, my only choice was to flee the scene when the lawyer-like comments came to light.

Re:Moral dilemma:

[fbjon]

Obvious: take the picture first, and then help the man screaming for help!

But seriously, people screaming for help are not drowning (yet). People who are actually drowning, on the contrary, are quietly fighting for their life. The lungs are used for breathing, and when you can't get enough air to stay alive, as an automatic response none of it will be spent on speech or other vocalisation.

Re:Moral dilemma:

[rokstar]

Most states have Good Samaritan laws that prevent you from being sued for rendering aid in these types of events. That usually the first thing they cover if you go get red cross certification for CPR or first aid.

Re:Moral dilemma:

[unencode200x]

Here's some anecdotal evidence to disprove your anecdotal evidence.

Have you seen this week's heroic rescue by bystanders of the man trapped under the burning car? Right here in the USA, baby:

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

Re:Moral dilemma:

[unencode200x]

But they don't always work: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-23-samaritan-accident_N.htm

Moral of the story is to familiarize yourself with the laws in your state.

Re:Moral dilemma:

[jafiwam]

Drownings are silent. Flapping his arms and screaming is not drowning. It's faking, or panicking for other reasons.

http://mariovittone.com/2010/05/154/

So, I would be taking pictures as this is obviously a retard or an idiot.

Re:Moral dilemma:

[jafiwam]

Shoulda left him there. You should know he's an asshole and would sue you. The "Lexus" tag on the back of the vehicle didn't tip you off?

Re:Moral dilemma:

[DNS-and-BIND]

*whoosh* Way to totally miss the point, literalist. The situation was a metaphor.

Re:Moral dilemma:

[Anonymous Coward]

In at least one of the youtube videos, an announcement was clearly audible over the PA advising the spectators to remain where they were. When you have trained emergency responders on the scene, consider that the last thing they need may be a bunch of amateurs getting in their way.

There's extensive research (see, e.g., Baruch Fischhoff, "Behaviorally Realistic Risk Management") showing that in emergency situations, people (even in the US ;-) ) generally behave rationally and responsibly. What we see here is not necessarily desensitization, but people responding to a situation by not panicking (e.g., stampeding toward or away from the crash site), but remaining in place so orderly rescue and evacuation can take place.

Re:Moral dilemma:

[Cosgrach]

Stick him back ito his fucking SUV and light a match! Lawsuit indeed!!

Mass casualty incident

[pfish]

It's not uncommon to have a vehicle accident with 5 patients and also declare that an MCI. That just means the first responders were overwhelmed by the amount of patients and injuries and they need to declare an MCI, which prompts a number of things: additional emergency personnel, overhead to manage the incident, notifies local hospitals so they can start taking action prior to patient arrival, etc.

Re:Frist post :(

[digitalchinky]

Although I didn't see anything about ejecting in the link you posted, I thought they had to bail out from these aircraft manually?

In the upper image it looks like the pilots helmet very far forward in the cockpit. Not visible at all in the second image as pointed out in the text. If the pilot was incapacitated due to heart attack or some other health condition, the aircraft would have nosed down rather than pulling up in to a kind of barrel roll. Mechanical for sure.

Re:Thought the potential of crashes was the point.

[thegreatbob]

Plane appears to have lost a servo tab on the left elevator, and who knows what else.... so maneuvering was probably quite difficult
http://corduroyplanet.blogspot.com/2011/09/chilled.html

Sitting a few feet from 600 mph objects not wise

[leftie]

Maybe sitting a few feet from steel objects traveling roughly 600 mph wasn't very wise. Maybe sitting a few feet from steel object traveling 600 mph wasn't EVER very wise.
I don't think we should continue to do something in the future that's stupid and reckless because we've been doing that stupid and reckless thing for a long time. We used to smoke and played football and hockey without helmets. We got a little less stupid and stopped.

Re:OT: moderator points??

[digitalchinky]

by mwalker (66677) (Score:4, Insightful) Maybe this was the anonymous admin? :-)

It had nothing to do with the pilot's age...

[KingRobot]

He was 74, not 80, and he held a current 2nd class medical certification from the FAA. Most private pilots only have a 3rd class; his health was fine and almost certainly had nothing to do with it. You can read more about his credentials here: http://www.av8rdan.com/2011/09/before-assuming-age-was-the-cause-of.html Also, photos are circulating that show control surfaces missing from the aircraft before the crash. Something went wrong mechanically - please do your research before making mindless assumptions. http://corduroyplanet.blogspot.com/2011/09/chilled.html

Re:It had nothing to do with the pilot's age...

[DNS-and-BIND]

Amazing. The guy was certified to fly the Messerschmitt 109, the Heinkel 111, and the MiG 17. From the link:

ALL MAKES AND MODELS OF SINGLE AND MULTI ENGINE PISTON POWERED AUTHORIZED AIRCRAFT. (This is the big one. If the FAA gives you this type rating, to fly ANYTHING that has one or two piston engines, you are in a very elite class of pilot. Very few pilots get this rating. There might be more guys playing quarterback in the NFL than pilots that have this rating.)

Re:It had nothing to do with the pilot's age...

[santax]

Piston? That is according to my knowledge not so hard to obtain. As a matter of fact, most pilots get this rating. Only the people who just want to fly a nice cessna for transport stick with the basic PPL. Now, if it was jet-engines... Having said that, I have no doubt about the guys skills. And maybe in the US rules are different than here in Europe.

Re:It had nothing to do with the pilot's age...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are making assumptions as well. Even if mechanical failure was _a_ reason for the accident, it does not mean pilot health related issues somehow can't be possible.

Re:It had nothing to do with the pilot's age...

[segedunum]

I'm sorry, but racing those kinds of planes at those speeds with the G forces involved is not something to be done by a 80 or a 74 year old so getting his exact age right is a bit pointless. This is not a sedate, formulaic air display he was taking part in and you need to be exceptionally fit with reaction times as good as you can have. There is every likelihood that he could have passed out as a result of the forces involved during the problem.

Re:It had nothing to do with the pilot's age...

[arikol]

errr.... *I* have that rating. And I'm just a regular shmoe.

But he did have type specific training on those high performance planes. THAT is cool :D

Re:It had nothing to do with the pilot's age...

[zyzko]

Maybe - maybe not. 2nd class medical is not that hard to get and keep even at an older age - If you don't have conditions that may lead to incapacitation, are not on "banned" medication and your hearing and eysight is within limits you are good to go. I would imagine when aging most lose their medical for age-related eyesgiht-issuses, a small stroke at the brain which affects vision or when the have to go on permanent medication.

The important point is that medical 2 is not a proof a competency to enter an air race in a fighter. That is up to the pilot and maybe the organization handling the event.

And age inevidably affects us - it slows reaction times, increases risks of incapacitation and makes us generally physically lesser performers - I'm not saying that in this case it was a factor, in fact by what I have seen so far I think probably not, but relying on the fact that he has medical 2 doesn't yet prove that he is qualified to race, it tells he has passed the FAA requirements for medical 2 which are not designed towards air races but for commercial aviation (not qualified for airline transport which has futher additional requirements including annual ecg testing.

Re:It had nothing to do with the pilot's age...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not suggesting that he wasn't healthy, but using a 2nd class medical to support that assertion is a bit much. It's widely accepted that a medical means that you were in sufficient health the day of the checkup to receive your medical certificate - from the moment you walk out of the AME's office, it's up to you to ensure your health.

Re:It had nothing to do with the pilot's age...

[bledri]

I'm sorry, but racing those kinds of planes at those speeds with the G forces involved is not something to be done by a 80 or a 74 year old so getting his exact age right is a bit pointless. This is not a sedate, formulaic air display he was taking part in and you need to be exceptionally fit with reaction times as good as you can have. There is every likelihood that he could have passed out as a result of the forces involved during the problem.

All evidence is that there was a mechanical failure [1] which subjected the pilot to in excess of 10 Gs. A 16 year old would pass out if subjected to 10 Gs.

[1] The elevator trim tab ripped off while the plane was flying at around 500 miles an hour causing the plane to pitch suddenly.

Re:OT: moderator points??

[ctid]

"They pile up"? What do you mean? You get some, then they expire a few days later and you may get some more.

Re:OT: moderator points??

[Anonymous Coward]

5-digit UID, I have positive karma but I don't post much (nor did I ever). I haven't had mod points in several years, but I used to get them about once a week or so. No idea what changed.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[BenJCarter]

Yeah great, more government control of our activities. What a solution. How about, some shit is dangerous, flying in and spectating air races can kill you. 'nuff said. Purchase entertainment accordingly. You have a brain...

Shame on YouTube

[Stiletto]

YouTube is censoring the videos as fast as they pop up. You can post movies of your dog picking its own nose, but factual, on-site amateur reporting is apparently forbidden.

Re:Shame on YouTube

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Totally. I'm with you.

So. Where are these dog videos, anyway?

Re:Shame on YouTube

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between factual reporting and "watch people evaporate". Generally, any reputable video reporting source is going to avoid showing someone actually get killed, because it strays awfully close to snuff films. Historical video runs by different rules, of course; and this week you may have seen a lot of historical video of 9/11. But that doesn't change the basic rules.

My grandfather saw one fiery plane crash live, back in the 1930's. In the late 1990's, when I casually mentioned it as a historical event, he went pale and started to cry. He wasn't a man who cried. He didn't have any relatives killed in that plane, there weren't any innocent bystanders killed, but it still scarred him. Think of the unlucky people whose families were in attendance at the air race. Do you really want to scar them by showing their relatives evaporate right in front of them, on screen, and with YouTube commenters leaving their little comments to boot?

Re:Shame on YouTube

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sensoring, removing copyrighted content probably. Thats just the way it is my friend.

Re:Shame on YouTube

[tftp]

Not sensoring, removing copyrighted content probably.

All content, on YouTube or elsewhere, is copyrighted (unless made by the US government or by a robot.) Copyright, AFAIK, is assigned automatically. If YouTube starts removing everything that is copyrighted they'd have nothing.

I understand that they can remove content that infringes other people's copyrights but by all indications these clips were taken by spectators who then own the copyright and are free to do whatever they please with it.

Re:Shame on YouTube

[WNight]

Then don't watch. I'd prefer to give someone the option to scar themselves than cripple everyone to prevent it.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[Anonymous Coward]

liberal commie tree hugger

Knowledable answer

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been attending the Reno Races for over 20 years, know many of the Unlimited pilots. I've illegally flown backseat several times in Unlimited class races. I knew Jimmy. He was probably the most liked and experienced pilot there. I wasn't there this time, but I understand he had turned outer #8 pylon (a 50 ft high pole with a barrel on the top) and was headd toward the pit area preparing to turn again and go down the straight in front of the stands. The FAA mandates no aircraft can fly closer than 1500 ft from people. A pilot can lose his license, and some have, for violating that hard rule. I think Jimmy had a medical or mechancial problem and tried to gain altitude to bail out or glide to a landing. He must have not had power in the 3000hp engine, or had pulled the throttle back - preparing to bail out. The plane ran wide over the crowd and he probably tried to fly it to a safe place to crash. Jimmy would do that, sacrifice himself for others. In the short video, the plane isn't completely vertical, but about ten degrees from vertical. That's imporant since it indicates loss of control. The P-51 is falling rather than diving nose completely first. One wing is full of high octane fuel, the other full of water alcohol. Yet there was no fire. That's weird. My guess is that many more spectators won't make it. A Mustang is two or three car lengths long and very heavy. The impact area had to be huge with lots of shrapnel. What a sad day. A good man gone.

Youtube

[eexaa]

Anyone got a backup of that video?

Re:Youtube

[bjs555]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/plane-crashes-in-front-of-grandstands-at-air-race-in-reno-injuring-dozens/story-e6freuy9-1226139677572

Re:Thought the potential of crashes was the point.

[julesh]

Like the song says: You can't always get what you want...

... but if you try sometimes you get decapitated in a plane crash?

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[BlueStrat]

US Airshows

Wrong.

This was an Air Race not an Air Show.

Was the race allowed to weasel out of those regs by not calling itself an airshow, even though that's exactly what it is?

The Reno Air Races operate under far stricter regulations than air shows. Unfortunately, sometimes aircraft fail in unpredictable ways. Nothing is completely safe.

"Second, air show performers Ã" both civilian and military Ã" are prohibited from performing maneuvers that direct the energy of their aircraft toward the area in which the spectators are sitting."

So much for that rule.

These aircraft travel at well over 400MPH. They can travel a long way in a very short time. There's also no way to determine which direction an aircraft might travel in the case of mechanical/control failure or pilot incapacitation.

It appears from the video that the pilot experienced a control failure. In that case, there's not much anyone including the pilot could do to avoid tragedy. The pilot appears to have lost all control of the aircraft, likely due to the aforementioned control system failure.

In this kind of scenario with no way to control the aircraft, the only way to be totally safe is to be outside of the distance the fuel onboard could carry the aircraft. This could be up to 100 miles or more in any direction, even with the limited fuel load of a race aircraft and depending on the point in the flight where directional control is lost.

The poor guy probably sacrificed his own life by staying with the aircraft and not bailing out/ejecting in a last-ditch attempt to try to avoid hitting the stands.

I hope the FAA employees, airshow promoters, and airport employees who approved the airshow plan are all charged criminally.

You may want to re-think your rant. The world cannot be made toddler-safe, and nobody would like living in it, even if it were possible. There is always an element of risk to practically any activity, even laying in bed at night under your covers.

Strat

Just like to say how saddened I am by all this.

[WhiteFluffyChest]

Such a trajedy, I just feel so sorry for everyone there and everyone involved. It is heart breaking for me to hear of this incident. Those who died from it, may they rest in peace. My thoughts and feelings are for these poor people, may they find peace, nothing more to say.

Eyewitness news

[mbone]

"... which he describes as "better than most of what is being reported in mainstream media so far."

Well, duh. He was there. Eyewitness reports always have an advantage that way.

"Dozens dead"

[qxcv]

Summary:

Earlier today, a tragic crash at the Reno National Championship Air Races killed at least 12 spectators, and left at least 75 injured.

TFA:

AT LEAST three people have been killed, and 56 injured, many critically, when a fighter plane crashed in front of grandstands at a US air show.

Is proff raeding really that hard?

Re:"Dozens dead"

[Finallyjoined!!!]

Is proff raeding really that hard?

Oh yes, proof reading really is that hard.....

Re:"Dozens dead"

[Megane]

proff raeding

WOOOSH!

That was the sound of the joke flying over your head at 500 MPH.

Re:"Dozens dead"

[El_Oscuro]

Sort of like that Mad Magazine "Back to Colege Isue"

Re:"Dozens dead"

[Finallyjoined!!!]

Unfortunately not.
You are, without doubt, a prawnus maximus..

Re:Sitting a few feet from 600 mph objects not wis

[EETech1]

I would have thought they'd use a lighter material than steel for an airplane?!

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[fbjon]

The plane banked to the right very suddenly, but with a kind of jerking motion, and continued until it was inverted. This put it in a position to go over the stands. However, a second later it went into a steep inverted nosedive towards the stands, and then going all the way into a half loop so that the plane was (barely) right side up again when it hit the ground right at the front of the crowd, probably because the pilot was pulling up to avoid the crowd. If the pilot had managed a fraction of a second more flight time, there would probably have been few casualties, since the crash was literally within meters of the crowd front, and people just meters to the sides escaped seemingly unharmed (at least according to some videos).

IANADoctor but I can't think of a medical emergency that causes that sort of erratic manoeuvring, passing out certainly doesn't. Moreover, the plane was already in trouble, since the pilot called in a mayday and started to pull up according to protocol when the fatal problems happened. Mechanical failure is simply more likely at this point: video showing the sequence of events

Re:Link is running JAVA!

[SplashMyBandit]

That musta been before 2005. Java is *very* fast now. If you read the following (2008) article from Gosling's own blog (ironic?) you see that Java easily beats C++, often beats C and nearly beats FORTRAN for speed. Shame your opinions on Java are so badly out of date as to be mis-informed (like so many on Slashdot). You're missing out on the great performance of Java, fast development times, huge amount of existing libraries, and true cross-platform (Windows, Linux, Mac). Here's the link for more information (and read the linked report by INRIA the French scientific supercomputing folks):
http://blogs.oracle.com/jag/entry/current_state_of_java_for

Re:Thought the potential of crashes was the point.

[EETech1]

I am lucky enough to live near the EAA airshow that I have gotten to see it over 30 times now, and there are truly some spectacular aircraft from every generation. The things that those machines can do in the hands of a capable pilot, and the mastery of the machine that those pilots have developed is awe inspiring to say the least!

Watching 30 of them take off, fly, and land in formation is just awesome! Only a few feet away from themselves the whole time!

The Dreamliner was a sweet bird BTW!

Re:"It crashed like Java does"

[SplashMyBandit]

Actually after using Java for a decade and a half I have never had the JVM crash on me due to a bug in the JVM. I have had Hotspot crash when I supplied bad pointers during JNI, and have had Out-of-Memory exceptions when I didn't change the default configuration. Otherwise I've never seen a JVM crash. Pretty amazing stuff (but then, Sun had fantastic engineers, just crappy [greedy] sales-folk who made buying Sun stuff unnecessarily hard and lengthy).

Re:Sitting a few feet from 600 mph objects not wis

[Anonymous Coward]

A P51 won't fly at more than around 430mph.

Re:Frist post :(

[Dunbal]

Fortunately for you there are other websites on the internet besides youtube.

Re:Frist post :(

[Dunbal]

Saw a different pic of the head-less cockpit here from a different angle - you can see it better if you enlarge the pic. Did not see the missing trim tab though, the angle is wrong for that.

More like GLOC

[DingerX]

At 500 mph, the wing is going to be generating a lot of lift, and a huge pitching-up motion. The elevator trim will be pretty severely nose-down. If that tab cuts loose, the aircraft will pitch hard up, probably inducing loss of consciousness in the pilot; that might also explain the tail gear.

I'm sure he would have done everything possible to avoid hitting anyone on the ground, but he probably didn't have much say in the matter.

Someone else linked to an account of another case where a racing P-51 lost a left trim tab. In that case, the pilot came to at 7000 feet in a climb.

So much for the Reno Air Race

[kheldan]

Sad to say, but there will now be a massive investigation into this incident, and regardless of the outcome of that investigation I can't see where public officials will allow an event like this to occur in the United States ever again.

Re:So much for the Reno Air Race

[rocket rancher]

Sad to say, but there will now be a massive investigation into this incident, and regardless of the outcome of that investigation I can't see where public officials will allow an event like this to occur in the United States ever again.

Really? Car racing has killed a lot of drivers and spectators. In fact, in one spectacular crash at Le Mans in 1955, the driver and 80 spectators died. But Le Mans is still one of the busiest tracks on the professional racing circuit, though admittedly not a US track. The Indy 500 is still going strong, despite 56 driver deaths and 61 crew, staff and spectator deaths. Air racing has killed a lot of pilots, and the Reno Air Race accounts for at least fifteen of them. This is the first time spectators have died, but I doubt seriously that the government will intervene. If car racing is still allowed after their track record (pardon the pun) why should air racing be treated any differently by the government? Indeed, I find it difficult to believe air racers, who are uniformly rich, white and Republican, would allow the government to constrain their hobby just because spectators got in the way of a crash.

Re:So much for the Reno Air Race

[kheldan]

This is the first time spectators have died, but I doubt seriously that the government will intervene

Think again: aircraft are involved, and cars, even Formula 1 cars, don't generally speaking drop out of the sky because of mechanical failures or driver error.

Re:OT: moderator points??

[Dunbal]

I for one read at -1. I like to decide for myself what's worth reading.

Re:Thought the potential of crashes was the point.

[CODiNE]

No that's motorcycle races where the audience cheers for crashes. I don't, but I've seen it several times.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[Anonymous Coward]

Missing and or stuck control surfaces have a tendency to change trajectory really damn fast.

Biggest Little Airplane Crash in the World?

[trout007]

I have that copyrighted.

Re:OT: moderator points??

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, there were a couple of years that I had plenty of +5 comments, without mod points, then one of the editors left in a huff and I started getting some again. Now that CmdrTaco left I get them much more often (like 3 times in the last month). I've been here forever, and no one seems willing to come out and say 'this is exactly how we assign/restrict mod points', so I'm guessing that it's manually done by the editors, likely using private lists of users to ignore or empower more, and a personalized script. I think that CmdrTaco's algorithm (mentioned below), might have been kicking me out for being too frequent, as I most often gotten mod points after failing to check Slashdot for a couple of days.

Re:Sitting a few feet from 600 mph objects not wis

[drinkypoo]

People do it because it's unwise. The thrill comes from being in danger. As it turns out, a placid life pushing paper does not provide sufficient opportunity for adrenalin release, and most people are about as exciting as a turtle on valium, so they need to expose themself to risk while sitting on their ass because they certainly won't get out and do anything themselves.

25% of American men still smoke, so we didn't get that much less stupid. In fact, I think we're only stopping smoking because we're being told to. Intelligence would be making our own decisions. We started smoking (As a nation) because Hollywood told us to.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[drinkypoo]

IANADoctor but I can't think of a medical emergency that causes that sort of erratic manoeuvring, passing out certainly doesn't.

Passing out? That's the limits of your imagination? It's called cardiac arrest, it is utterly common in men of seventy-five (and increasing) and it often causes muscle contractions. If you're holding the stick, which presumably you will be doing while racing, then there is a risk of such happenstance. I don't know a lot about airplanes but it's my understanding that you can rip control surfaces off by trying to make them do things they can't do... especially if there is a mechanical defect.

Looked like a control surface failure

[nathanh]

From the videos I've seen it looked like a control surface failure, most likely the elevator.

Won't know for sure until the FAA releases their reports.

Re:Looked like a control surface failure

[Stele]

In one of the photos it looks like the elevator trim tab is completely missing.

The human life lost is indeed tragic, but I'm personally devastated that we've lost yet another irreplaceable P51.

Re:Looked like a control surface failure

[Dzimas]

The pilot was not visible in the cockpit in photos I've seen during the final seconds of the flight. Why? The loss of the elevator trim tab alone should not have caused a crash like that. The pilot would simply have had to apply more control pressure. A more probable reason for the crash: Medical emergency followed by extreme control movements at high speed that stressed the aircraft beyond design limits (it was a clipped wing racer with a number of aerodynamic mods). That could cause separation of the trim tab. I'm sure the NTSB report will be enlightening.

Re:Looked like a control surface failure

[Paul1969]

The pilot was not visible in the cockpit in photos I've seen during the final seconds of the flight. Why?

Leaning back at a sharp angle while hauling on the joystick with all his strength?

Re:Looked like a control surface failure

[Cosgrach]

As a pilot, I have read a *lot* of NTSB reports. It's a good way to keep yourself aware of the dangers that can crop up whilst flying. Most of the reports are pretty dull, and not always very enlightening. This one may be better than most because it was so public.

Most of the reports that I have read are generally stupid things like running out of fuel or flying into poor weather conditions.

Taking off is optional. Landing is not.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[segedunum]

That only works if the aircraft crashes under the planned flight path. If it veers off course due to a control problem this is moot.

That's why you have minimum safe distances to account for strange off-course diversions. Those distances are quite large for a reason. Something incredibly exceptional must have happened to that aircraft or rules and guidelines were simply not being followed.

Either way, something is very wrong here and the way the plane came down just adds fuel to the fire.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[segedunum]

These aircraft travel at well over 400MPH. They can travel a long way in a very short time. There's also no way to determine which direction an aircraft might travel in the case of mechanical/control failure or pilot incapacitation.

Yes, there is and minimum safe distances account for that. If a plane and pilot veers that for off course then you have got something very, very wrong going on - extreme pilot error or a plane that is not fit for purpose. Either way, there was some incompetence here and the way the plane came down just raises the suspicions.

The poor guy probably sacrificed his own life by staying with the aircraft and not bailing out/ejecting in a last-ditch attempt to try to avoid hitting the stands.

Given that he was 74 years old the odds of him passing out due to the forces involved were quite high. He would have done himself a favour had he stayed at home. You need an exceptional level of fitness to fly those planes with the forces involved and you don't do it at 74 years old. I certainly wouldn't race planes at that age.

You may want to re-think your rant. The world cannot be made toddler-safe, and nobody would like living in it, even if it were possible.

I'm afraid this kind of idiotic attitude is just designed to paint over the issues so nothing has to be done. In the 21st century people should be doing better than Waldo's Flying Circus, it's as simple as that.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[segedunum]

Well, you can add mechanical incompetence to the list because a plane should not be doing that of its own accord. No matter what way you cut it this was not simply an 'accident'.

Re:Sitting a few feet from 600 mph objects not wis

[seantide]

A lot of life is dangerous. You can get killed in or at an auto race, or for that matter crossing the road to go play video games. Your odds doing the latter are quite a bit higher. You cannot legislate safety or morality. Risk is not stupid, its part of life and what makes it worth living, and what drives almost all improvement in it. Removing it and we are the living dead.

Re:Sitting a few feet from 600 mph objects not wis

[seantide]

That's not true.

Did you look up the rated speed of a P-51 in level flight with armor, ammo, and so on, at a certain altitude to get that number? I ask because that figure is listed in a book I have, but its an "official" speed based on a combat ready plane at a certain altitude.

In WWII, Chuck Yeager came near the sound barrier in a P-51, locking up his controls and nearly dying because of it. They routinely chased Nazi jet aircraft by diving at them.

The racers are using modified P-51s with more powerful engines, components stripped out, no ammunition, etc.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[Anynomous Coward]

Given that all the indications point to a mechanical defect, and not to pilot error/incapacitation, he has done himself a great favour participating in the race as the outcome was that he died quickly and spectacularly during his favorite activity, instead of wasting his final unrewarding years away in a retirement home. I'd like to die that way too. And frankly, the same probably applies to the bystanders that died. Go watch a snail race if you want to be 100% safe from crashing snails.

Why Gosling's Writing Is Better

[guttentag]

The reason Gosling's is better is because the mainstream media articles are written for specific audiences ("Plane Crashes Because of Poor Visibility Due to Lax Environmental Controls" or "Plane Crashes Because Overzealous EPA Regulations Forced Pilot to Replace Perfectly Good WWII Part with Less-Polluting Part from China"), while his was truly written to be platform independent. He could write one report that anyone with a Web browser could read anywhere, regardless of their leanings.

Re:Why Gosling's Writing Is Better

[dkleinsc]

That can't be right: I was able to understand everything he wrote without using an interpreter.

But seriously, I'm glad he's OK, because there are about 100 people that are not.

Re:Why Gosling's Writing Is Better

[Sloppy]

He could write one report that anyone with a Web browser could read anywhere, regardless of their leanings.

I guess having some raw facts is a good start, but before we show this story to others, we need to put in something that explains the crash was an inevitable consequence of

• Obamacare
• Global warming
• The federal debt
• The sad state of education in America today
• America's loss of faith in the face of mere theories
• Software patents and non-producing litigious patent holders
• They're trying to take our guns
• Illegal immigrants
• Multinational corporations corrupting democracy
• (and since Gosling should be part of this competition) C# & .Net

(Pick at least one, though if you can blame the crash on several of the above items simultaneously, you get exponentially more points.)

Re:Why Gosling's Writing Is Better

[Anonymous Coward]

But....his writing is worse in that he speculates on things like number of deaths (and is wrong) and on likelihood of injury vs. death (and is wrong). He'd get fired as a reporter. Of course..its still nice to read "first hand accounts", but interpreting them like one might actual "reporting" would be unwise. Of course...the media still sucks.

Re:Why Gosling's Writing Is Better

[Swanktastic]

He also claimed that "at least 30 people died." Turns out there are 3 deaths (including the pilot) the next morning.

This is why you have to be careful listening to first hand blog reports without discretion- people involved in tragic events are rarely capable of making an accurate assessment of the situation.

Re:Why Gosling's Writing Is Better

[Megane]

I had to use a compiler. But at least it only had to compile to platform-independent byte codes.

Re:Why Gosling's Writing Is Better

[prehistoricman5]

I only saw him state that he heard there were "30 serious injuries." I didn't see any comments about deaths.

Re:Why Gosling's Writing Is Better

[Anonymous Coward]

From his blog:

  They're saying "30 serious injuries" but I know that's a long way from the truth. At least that many died instantly in the impact.

Re:Why Gosling's Writing Is Better

[djmurdoch]

Turns out there are 3 deaths

Turns out the mainstream media got it wrong too. I've heard 3 deaths, 9 deaths, 12 deaths.

I guess the mainstream media (who just parrot the first thing they hear) are also rarely capable of making fast, accurate assessments.

Re:Why Gosling's Writing Is Better

[Paul1969]

And just why should it be the media's job to make "fast, accurate assessments"? Even the first responders are hard put to do so.
In any emergency situation, there is bound to be confusion. And reporters do try to point this out to readers/viewers. Ever notice phrases like "first reports indicate... "?
By all means criticize journalism that is sloppy, slanted, etc. But being picky over the death count at a fresh disaster is not a valid criticism.

Re:Why Gosling's Writing Is Better

[Flere Imsaho]

Actually, I found Gosling report devoid of information, and the bit about there being no sound was incorrect - the Mustang went in with the throttle open, and there was plenty of noise evident in the videos. I'm sure it might have seemed that way to him at the time - the mind can play funny tricks in situations of extreme stress.
There's been lots of informative posts from race experienced aviators, in other forums than this.

And platform independent? It's not like he wrote the post in Java or anything - WTF?

Air show or Air race?

[SmallFurryCreature]

There is a difference. An airshow is about looking at aircraft, an air race is a race with aircraft and why do people watch races? Why when a trailer is made for racing on tv does it invariably show the crashes?

A rollercoaster is an event where we push our sense of danger to the edge but never over it, we wouldn't go on rollercoasters if they had the same accident as races of all kinds do.

But we do attend races... well, some do. Why stand on the road of a rally race?

Some attend races for the crashes. Not all but some.

The FAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Should ground all ancient WW2 aircraft and inspect them thoroughly. It was a matter of time really.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope the FAA employees, airshow promoters, and airport employees who approved the airshow plan are all charged criminally. Sadly, that'll never happen....

You're an idiot

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had enough of pussies like you screwing up western countries. Shut up and get on with life.

Not 12 Dead...3 right now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stephanie Kruse, a spokeswoman for the Regional Emergency Medical Service Authority, told The Associated Press that emergency crews took a total of 56 injury victims to three hospitals. She said they also observed a number of people being transported by private vehicle, and those people were not included in the count.

Kruse said of the total 56, at the time of transport, 15 were considered in critical condition, 13 were serious condition with potentially life-threatening injuries and 28 were non-serious or non-life threatening.

Jezus christ how often does this have to be said

[SmallFurryCreature]

AIRRACE, not an airshow.

In races, it is pretty normal for objects to go out of control and leave the trac. From cyclists to horses to cars and of course airplanes.

Why does turd after turd come up with airshow rules when it is pretty clear from all the reporting and of course the bloody video that his is a race?

Did you watch the challenger crash and go, "but you shouldn't strap rockets to your plane to begin with"?

AIR RACE.

Gosh and this on a tech site where we complain how ordinary people keep thinking computers are magic but the moment a story happens a tiniest bit out of the common for most and everyone turns into a tabloid writer.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[arikol]

Evidence (photgraphs) suggest that the elevator trim tab broke off. Due to the speed making a nose up moment the plane was fairly probably trimmed pitch down. Elevator tab breaks off = plane pitches violently up, hurting or killing the pilot (imagine an instant, unexpected 9 Gs when you are setting the turboboost setting. BAM face in instrument panel!). The plane then careens up, past vertical, and down again, with the pilot probably incapacitated. The plane is at around 450mph when this occurs. It can travel quite far in a few seconds, and in this case that was,sadly, towards the spectators. Sad, but shit does happen. This is a racing incident, and has always been one of the risks of racing.

My heart goes out to all those who are injured or have lost a loved one.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[arikol]

Dear sir. Thank you!

A toddler safe world would indeed be a boring place! Understand risks, and embrace what you think is sensible.
I for one have dreamed of going to the Reno Air races, and that dream will not change due to this.

Normal human reaction

[SmallFurryCreature]

It takes one. Just one.

There has been a lot of research into this field and the basic conclusion is that there are only a few "real" people in the world, the rest are filler.

Simple setup, at a busy public location an actor fakes an incident, say collapsing on the pavement. The results are filmed. What shows? Nobody does anything UNTIL one person does something, then others rush to assist as well following that ones persons example.

It is wrong to think this is malice. There are leaders in our society and there are followers and the followers need someone to give them an example of what to do. How should I react?

Babies already have this, experiment: place a thick glass plate between two solid objects, making a bridge. Place child on one of the objects and encourage it to crawl over the glass bridge (height) to the other. Baby will be happy to do so, or drool, or poop (whipe, change and repeat). If it notices the drop below it, watch its reaction. It won't have one UNTIL it sees its mother. Mother looks happy? Baby happy. Mother looks scared? Baby is scared. Suddenly the height is something it must apparently fear, and it will.

What do you do when an incident happens? I actually know some emergency training because it was forced on me when I did my national service. A few years ago I had a chance to use it... no, that isn't right, a few years ago buried training emerged and took over. I didn't know what to do but my training did. It was on automatic. Had I had to give instructions to someone else to do the same as I was doing, I wouldn't have been able to. If you asked me afterwards what I did, I couldn't really tell you, CPR but not the actions itself.

People are cattle, performing well rehearsed tricks, my trick just happened to include CPR.

If one person shows the right example, the rest will follow and humanity can show itself at its best. If one person shows the wrong example... well... read up on history, things can get very dark indeed.

Oh as for an aid giver being sued? I did crack some ribs of my "patient" an elderly woman who suffered an heart attack right in front of her house, she died a few days later. Her son came to me and thanked me because although cracked ribs hurt like hell and she still died, she died amongst family in a warm bed, not on the street alone. Only in America would a person think of sueing for giving aid. One person showing the wrong example and the rest followed.

We make our own society far more then we think but it is always up to a single individual to lead the way. One must go first.

Just pray you are the one when the call comes unexpected. For 20 years my training went to waste and then I needed it in an instant... those that falter are not evil, they are human. The ones who exploit it, like those who sue or steal from victims, they are the ones to hate.

So don't blame the persons standing around that accident, blame the guy who wanted to sue you for creating the atmosphere of being afraid to help in the first place.

Re:Normal human reaction

[jeffb (2.718)]

Babies already have this, experiment: place a thick glass plate between two solid objects, making a bridge. Place child on one of the objects and encourage it to crawl over the glass bridge (height) to the other. Baby will be happy to do so, or drool, or poop (whipe, change and repeat). If it notices the drop below it, watch its reaction. It won't have one UNTIL it sees its mother. Mother looks happy? Baby happy. Mother looks scared? Baby is scared. Suddenly the height is something it must apparently fear, and it will.

That's a really cool story, but it's almost entirely false.

The Visual Cliff experiment, by its original developers

This experiment teaches us a lot about the development of perception, in both humans and animals. It doesn't say anything at all about looking to mommy for approval.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[arikol]

Yup, and NO government guidelines can judge a safe distance in that scenario. Well, a thousand miles away is probably safe. Probably...

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[BlueStrat]

There's also no way to determine which direction an aircraft might travel in the case of mechanical/control failure or pilot incapacitation.

Yes, there is and minimum safe distances account for that.

There is no "safe distance" really. As I stated in my previous post, one of those aircraft could conceivably travel up to 100 miles or more in any direction.

Given that he was 74 years old the odds of him passing out due to the forces involved were quite high.

You don't understand the thorough testing those pilots must pass. If he wasn't physically & mentally capable he wouldn't be allowed to fly, especially racing, period. Besides, having that many decades of experience flying means I'd trust him before I'd trust some twenty-something to safely pilot an aircraft I was a passenger on. It was also reported by eyewitnesses that it appeared there was a control surface failure of some sort. It wouldn't matter in that case how young or old the pilot was, how the course was laid out, distance, etc.

You're opining out of ignorance here.

In the 21st century people should be doing better than Waldo's Flying Circus, it's as simple as that.

But this is the equivalent of a "Flying Circus" (in the form of a race) that people are *paying* to spectate at through their own free will. Just as in any activity involving large human-controlled/piloted/driven objects/vehicles traveling at extreme velocities at the edge of control, there is risk both to the actual participants and to spectators.

The risks can be mitigated to some extent but not eliminated. The risks are part of the draw both for participants and spectators. If it wasn't risky, there would be little challenge and little interest. Heck, spectators have died at freaking baseball games for crying out loud.

One must accept some risk of injury or death if one desires to spectate in person at an inherently dangerous event like an auto or aircraft race. If you are unwilling to accept the risks, then watch it on video from your home.

You're *much* more likely to die or be critically injured on the drive to or from the air race than spectating. Spectating at air races has resulted in far, far fewer spectator injuries than car racing. That's despite the fact that you can't build a "retaining wall" around the sky as you can around auto racing tracks.

With the level of fear and risk-aversion you demonstrate by your comments I'm surprised you're able to leave your residence. Or get out of bed.

Strat

inconvenience is not an excuse for poor safety

[SuperBanana]

There is a huge difference between an unlimited air race and a display airshow.

In terms of safety regulations, there damn well shouldn't be, because the regs are based on the chances of an aircraft hitting the stands.

The issue is that a 500mph unlimited racer with control issues can come down miles away from where the control problem happened and in any direction.

Then the audience needs to be "miles away" so they have the same protection as an audience at an "air show".

Oh, your audience can't see the race now? Too bad. At least none of them will go home in a body bag with an the tailbone of a 80 year old down their throat and an airplane propeller up their ass.

Re:inconvenience is not an excuse for poor safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop being such a whiny little bitch. Who are you to tell people that they can't take a (very small) risk of death in order to get a better view of the air race?

Re:inconvenience is not an excuse for poor safety

[jklovanc]

Over the 49 year history of the Reno Air race there has been exactly one crash that involved spectators. Yes it was a horrific crash and caused many fatalities; a bit like a bus accident. Considering the traffic fatality figures I bet they were safer at the airport than driving to the airport. Everything we do has risk involved. Even taking a shower. We accept these risks and go on. A single freak accident shouldn't kill a sport. It is not your place to decide what risk someone else will take. If you don't think air races are safe enough then don't go; let others make their own decision.

Re:

[taiwanjohn]

The point is not the "piston" part, it's the "all makes and models" part. IANAPilot (just took a few lessons) but I know that you only get certified for a certain type of plane, one at a time. If you learned on a Cessna 152, they'll probably let you fly a Cessna 172, but that's about it. You have to get checked out on every make/model plane you fly. (And of course, for your check-out flight, you not only have to pay the rental for the plane, you also have to pay for the test.) That's why it's so rare to have a "blanket" rating like this.

Re:Frist post :(

[drew30319]

It is respect for victims and their loved ones. Anybody seeking this gore out has serious issues - and the most serious issue is that most would disagree with me because this is the point at which we now find ourselves. Entertainment trumps compassion in our culture and frankly I think we'd be better off without those who see this type of tragedy as a way to get their gore-rocks-off; I wish they would just go away.

We have become numb to genuine tragedy because we celebrate fictionalized tragedy as plot devices and then squeeze every possible $ out of genuine tragedy. Fuck those who say they have a "right to know" or "right to see" - that's crap and intellectually you know better. If it's your sister / mom / daughter who is burning to death in a video nobody has a *right* to watch that on youtube while they chow down on cheezy-poofs.

My condolences to the many many victims of this whose lives will never be the same. Such a horrible loss and I wish that your lives would never have been so affected.

P.S. I know somewhat of what I speak. E! Entertainment did a show on my daughter's murder on their program "True Hollywood Stories." My daughter was a high school student murdered by her ex-boyfriend. There was NO "Hollywood" story, true or otherwise. They just wanted to make $$$ off of my poor daughter's death so they could buy more cheezy-poofs. Nothing but parasites.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[Anonymous Coward]

What ever happened to not ranting about criminal charges before you have all the evidence? You are the reason America is a jump-the-gun, find someone to blame, bunch of sissies. There should be a law agains douchebags like you.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[Anonymous Coward]

The poor guy probably sacrificed his own life by staying with the aircraft and not bailing out/ejecting in a last-ditch attempt to try to avoid hitting the stands.

Pilot and skydiver here.
1. WWII fighters did not have ejection seats.
2. At that low altitude there is no time to climb out of an out-of-control aircraft.
3. The still photos show the pilot slumped forward in the cockpit, no doubt unconscious from the high-G's when the plane nosed up.

Re:OT: moderator points??

[Anonymous Coward]

this is the first time I've been granted mod points ever since the forever-denied thread-of-death where all who moderated it were mod-banned, which has been something like four years (at least).?

Heh, that thread was from Jan 2002... more than 9.5 years ago. You are old. :)

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[Anonymous Coward]

But we all have to pay for this stupidity. In the long run, in a society that values life, it's less expensive and morally justified to have regulations and enforce them than to clean up messes like this (and banking messes, etc.) and deal with the aftermath which affects more than just those who made the bad or dangerous decisions.

Re:Sitting a few feet from 600 mph objects not wis

[Anonymous Coward]

leftie, perhaps change it to bleeding heart liberal.

1 - "few feet" is such an exaggeration it isn't worth going into more detail.
2 - "stupid and dangerous" is rather dependent on your point of view. This is the first spectator death at an air show in 60 years. How many people died of a car wreck within 10 miles of you last night?
3 - football and hockey have actually become more dangerous with helmets. They protect the head, allowing you to dive head first at full speed into someone else. Before helmets, you had to hit with your shoulder; more forgiving and less likely to be "head to head"

So you are horribly informed, basically a complete wuss willing to sit in your apartment all day on the internet (think "I read an article the other day... well the majority of an article"). But, please, please let us that are willing to risk life on the outside do what we want and don't try to make a law agains this.

Re:Frist post :(

[RoFLKOPTr]

I don't really have a problem with them flying somewhere but flying that close to people on the ground is very stupid.

This is the first major accident in the 49 years of the Reno Air Races with injuries to spectators. Unfortunately due to knee-jerk reactions and political showboating, I foresee the event being severely gimped or cancelled altogether. I sure hope not, because I haven't had a chance to see it yet.

The explosion left 116 hospitalized and...

[Anonymous Coward]

100 dead. Ooopss, my bad, wrong story. That happened in Nairobi, and why should anybody give a shit about dead people in god-forsaken countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Nairobi_pipeline_fire

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[modecx]

Whether it be an air show or air race, I'll point out that the activity of being a spectator of the sport is in all likelihood statistically safer than the drive they took to go watch the show in the first place.

Bad things happen to good people. It sucks. 'Nuff said.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[Anonymous Coward]

Higher in this thread you see someone linking to 2 photographs showing a part of the tail elevator missing and the tail gear deployed. Mechanical failure sounds plausible.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[fbjon]

That applies to all aircraft incidents these days. Multiple reasons is the norm..

NASCAR is a poor analogy

[drnb]

Ignoring the human tragedy of crashes ...

NASCAR is a poor analogy. There is nothing historic about a NASCAR car, they are new and replaceable. WW2 aircraft are of great historical and cultural value. When these aircraft are lost in situations where no people are hurt it is still a tragedy. These aircraft are rare and irreplaceable. Perhaps they have become rare enough that owners should exercise some discretion and turn them into museum pieces.

Danger is fun, but no one wants danger to manifest

[drnb]

Air shows are not necessarily adrenaline free. The air shows I attended tended to have various demonstrations. High speed fly by, simulated close air support and shows by the Air Force Thunderbirds or Navy Blue Angels. The later is risky, though perhaps not quite at the air race level.

I understand that air races have an inherent danger. The presence of danger can be fun, that however does not mean that people want that danger to manifest. I think sky divers, scuba divers visiting sharks, etc can attest to that. While I do not seek out sharks I do scuba dive, I understand that there is an inherent risk. However I don't really think that risk is part of the enjoyment. Rather it is the price I've accepted to find the enjoyment of visiting an aquatic environment. I would argue that folks going to an air race are not seeking out the danger, rather accepting the very low likelihood of personal danger to be the price of seeing the planes go by really fast.

Great Banner Ad - Delta

[Anonymous Coward]

So, while reading this story the banner ad above it is Delta airlines. Classy.

More details on the plane and pilot

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.ocala.com/article/20101031/ARTICLES/101039922?p=3&tc=pg

I recall seeing an article on the airplane. Apparently he was using a boil-off cooling method where a tank of coolant is boiled to steam and vented overboard during flight, the venting steam is seen in some of the photos of the plane in flight. You can see that the characteristic P-51 radiator under the belly of the plane has been removed, leaving a cleaner profile. Some people noted this online and were wondering what it was.

Also there was a lot of discussion about the aircraft stalling on CNN last night. Just a reminder for those not familiar with aircraft - the term 'stall' in aircraft means the airplane's wing lost lift, not that the engine stopped running. A hang glider or paper airplane (with no engine at all) can stall if it is pitched upward too much in flight. There was no indication that the airplane's engine had any loss of power.
If an airplane's engine quits, that's called a loss of power or engine failure.

Some photos indicate that the elevator trim tab might have come off in flight, which could have changed the control forces rapidly and led to a loss of control. With the speeds and low altitude involved, there would not have been a lot of time to cope with such a problem.

The pilot wasn't seated normally in the cockpit.

[Dzimas]

I find it interesting the pilot is not visible in photos of the cockpit during the last few of seconds. Had he been incapacitated by unexpected G loads? Was he reaching down to the floor of the cockpit for some reason? Was there a medical emergency? One shot clearly shows the left elevator trim tab was missing during the final plunge to the ground. The question, of course, is whether it separated as a result of extreme high speed maneuvering or whether it was a cause of the crash. I doubt the loss of elevator trim would be enough to cause the accident because its purpose is to adjust the pitch of flight so the pilot doesn't have to maintain control pressure. The pilot could controlled the aircraft without trim.

Re:Danger is fun, but no one wants danger to manif

[drinkypoo]

I understand that air races have an inherent danger. The presence of danger can be fun, that however does not mean that people want that danger to manifest.

If it doesn't occasionally manifest somewhere then there's no real perception of danger, is there? Sure, we want it to happen somewhere else...

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[rainmaestro]

Except for the fact that the minimum safe distances DON'T account for that. Have a look at page 23 of the following PDF, that's the unlimited race course for Reno. Notice the safety buffer at the closest point: 1534'. You know how long it takes a plane going 450mph to travel 1534 ft? About 2 seconds.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/5899aca707d02f8b862569dd00768601/%24FILE/Appx1-3.pdf

Hoping that one of Abigail Sciuto's sisters gets

[RobertLTux]

that chip

unless that chip is a melted goo blob somebody with her talents should be able to get lots of info off the chip (in know fictional character but...)

AP News update

[Slur]

AP News is now reporting 9 casualties.

Re:Frist post :(

[Wyatt Earp]

Being in peak physical condition at 74 doesn't mean his vascular or neurological systems were in peak condition.

Humans age, systems start working less efficiently, there is no way to avoid that.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[Savantissimo]

Let's see - 1500ft required setback, 500mph = 2 seconds. Make it 4500 ft. and you get 6 seconds, or a bit more to account for the change in velocity needed for the path to divert toward the crowd. The videos show that the plane was out of control for at least 12 seconds. The photos and videos show a wide setback and a broken elevator trim tab, so it appears that something exceptional happened to that aircraft and the rules likely were being followed.

Re:Frist post :(

[lexsird]

All that is gold does not glitter,
        Not all those who wander are lost;
      The old that is strong does not wither,
          Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

I would wager it was mechanical failure; I have a gut feeling it was.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[segedunum]

There is no "safe distance" really. As I stated in my previous post, one of those aircraft could conceivably travel up to 100 miles or more in any direction.

Like I've already said, when you've got a plane going that far off course you've got a problem. Whether it be because of unsafe distances between planes and crowd or an incompetently maintained aircraft, there is a problem here.

You don't understand the thorough testing those pilots must pass.

It doesn't matter how many tests he passes. Racing those kind of aircraft is extremely physically intensive that demands a great deal of your neck muscles and your core fitness. No test is going to recreate that, and if he had to pass a Formula 1 driver test which is the only thing close enough in terms of what's required he'd fail straight away. Fitness is everything.

You're opining out of ignorance here.

I'm not I'm afraid. The ignorance here is assuming that anyone of any age and experience can jump in these types of aircraft and race.

You're *much* more likely to die or be critically injured on the drive to or from the air race than spectating.......With the level of fear and risk-aversion you demonstrate by your comments I'm surprised you're able to leave your residence. Or get out of bed.

Like I said, I'm not interested in this kind of nonsense because it's basically an excuse to do nothing and tell everyone that nothing was wrong so you can carry on as normal. That's called ignorance.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[segedunum]

Far, far, far too close.

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[rainmaestro]

Interestingly enough, Reno's buffer zone appears to actually be wider than required. Further reading in that FAA doc (AC 91-45C, the current FAA regs for Air Events) turns up this passage from Section 54.b:
"The unlimited racing class (or other new classes with speeds in excessof 250 miles per hour) requires a spacing of 1,000 feet between the spectator and the showline."

The showline being defined as "The edge of this raceway closest to the spectator area is generally the showline over which no aircraft is permitted to pass while racing."

So in theory, spectators can be as close as 1,000 feet to the flight path of the aircraft during an unlimited race. In the case of slower races where speeds are 250mph, this buffer zone is reduced to 500 feet.

Pretty close, but then I suppose that's the whole appeal of attending. Without the danger aspect of being so close to the action, most races would be pretty darn dull (watching planes and cars turn left for four hours isn't really my idea of a fun time).

JG bit of a knobhead

[Anonymous Coward]

James Gosling what an arrogant arsehole, a genuine tragedy and it all about him and his fucking suvival, fuck you James Gosling

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[BlueStrat]

The poor guy probably sacrificed his own life by staying with the aircraft and not bailing out/ejecting in a last-ditch attempt to try to avoid hitting the stands.

Pilot and skydiver here.
1. WWII fighters did not have ejection seats.
2. At that low altitude there is no time to climb out of an out-of-control aircraft.
3. The still photos show the pilot slumped forward in the cockpit, no doubt unconscious from the high-G's when the plane nosed up.

Nice to hear from someone else with experience in the aviation field. Retired senior avionics technician here. I've done some work on WW2 vintage aircraft electronics for a local air museum.

I'm aware that the P-51 series didn't come equipped with any ejection system. Being this was an unlimited event with highly modified aircraft, I wasn't going to assume one hadn't been added. The P-61 Black Widow night-fighter was one of the earliest US military aircraft used in some of the first post-war experimental ejection system tests, IIRC.

I agree that the pilot had very little time in which to take any action, and bailing out was likely an impossibility. He probably realized this as well and, if he was still conscious, trying anything he could to take the aircraft away from the grandstand area during his last seconds.

As to the pilot being slumped forward, that very well may have been an indication he was unconscious and/or being subjected to extreme G forces. It may also have been the pilot reaching down and/or up under a panel in some kind of attempt to regain some kind of last-second control. There's simply no telling.

However, some eyewitnesses also stated they believe they saw the pilot alter the plane's course at the last moments enough to avoid the grandstands themselves.

I'm willing to give the pilot the benefit of the doubt.

Strat

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[Cosgrach]

It doesn't matter how many tests he passes. Racing those kind of aircraft is extremely physically intensive that demands a great deal of your neck muscles and your core fitness. No test is going to recreate that, and if he had to pass a Formula 1 driver test which is the only thing close enough in terms of what's required he'd fail straight away. Fitness is everything.

Dude, he was probably more fit at his age than you are.

Re:The pilot wasn't seated normally in the cockpit

[cherokee158]

Having flown an out-of-trim aircraft, I would dispute that. Control pressures can rapidly build to an unmanageable level at high speeds without proper trim.

They help, except when they can't get there

[jvonk]

The person was in no greater danger from the leaking gas than from some bystander attempting to move him out of the car and making a fractured neck worse.

True, but beware sweeping generalizations. There was a complicated MVC that resulted in an overturned SUV in my metro area. Bystanders called 911 before attempting assist (as per proper protocol), but the ambient gasoline caught fire while the 911 call was live. The background of the tape includes the trapped passengers screaming as they burned to death with the 911 dispatcher asking if the bystander could do anything to help, to which he replied, "No, ma'am, not anymore." No survivors.

This is a scenario that demonstrates that it is difficult to have appropriate, hard-and-fast rules that the general populace can internalize. Obviously in your case it was best that you were left untouched. However, in this other case it is possible that some of the occupants could have survived if a bystander had risked extricating them in the first few minutes.

Re:They help, except when they can't get there

[snowgirl]

The person was in no greater danger from the leaking gas than from some bystander attempting to move him out of the car and making a fractured neck worse.

True, but beware sweeping generalizations. There was a complicated MVC that resulted in an overturned SUV in my metro area. Bystanders called 911 before attempting assist (as per proper protocol), but the ambient gasoline caught fire while the 911 call was live. The background of the tape includes the trapped passengers screaming as they burned to death with the 911 dispatcher asking if the bystander could do anything to help, to which he replied, "No, ma'am, not anymore." No survivors.

This is a scenario that demonstrates that it is difficult to have appropriate, hard-and-fast rules that the general populace can internalize. Obviously in your case it was best that you were left untouched. However, in this other case it is possible that some of the occupants could have survived if a bystander had risked extricating them in the first few minutes.

Well, more specifically in my case, since I was on a motorcycle, the motorcycle actually landed about 25 feet or so away from where I ended up. No one was really in any danger if the bike caught fire.

You are correct though, that there are cases where gasoline can catch fire, and people should be removed (there was a case just recently here in Albuquerque, where a police officer pulled a guy out of a burning cab), but there is rarely a risk of EXPLOSION, I guess is the distinction that should be made. Rather, don't RUSH to move people out because "zOMG IT'S GONNA BLOW!!!" but rather "let's make sure the person is safe, and if not, let's move him." The whole notion of "zOMG EXPLODE!!!" tends to put panic into people, which is we can pretty much always guarantee is the wrong response.

Was the flight made by Chinese?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or made in USA?

Re:What happened to the setback and trajectory reg

[jwilso91]

Interestingly enough, Reno's buffer zone appears to actually be wider than required. *snip*

True. Remember that an aircraft going 400 mph will cover that 1000 feet in somewhat less than 2 seconds. To make an unlimited air race safe the setback would have to be so great that you might as well stay home and watch it on TV. Which would be a pity, since the visual is only a small part of the experience.