I'll drink to that!:beer: Cheers!
Plane Crashes Into Stands At Reno Air Races
- Thread starter usedto
- Start date
I'll drink to that!:beer: Cheers!
Here is an interesting perspective on this tragic accident from the International Association of Emergency Managers email discussion group, posted on Sept 18th.
For the uninitiated.. EM = Emergency Manager, EOC = Emergency Operations Centre
IAEM Discussion Group:
"I'm working the Red Cross EOC support for this event. We are now at 9 confirmed casualties. Approximately 57 transported to area hospitals. All indications are that the P-51 aircraft suffered a mechanical failure at maximum speed (500 MPH) The aircraft impacted adjacent to grandstands and hit a box seating area. There was no fire, but an explosion of debris on impact.
The air race association and local EM's run multiple full-scale exercises to test emergency capabilities for an incident like this. We did 2 major exercises this May involving air crashes. As a result, the response to this disaster was amazing. All patients were transported to area medical facilities within 62 minutes of the crash. Substantial resources were pre-staged at the event and regional hospitals are prepared to handle up to 150 mass casualties in this manner.
I will get more info as I get it and will share AAR's as I obtain them."
..................
---IAEM email discussion group
For the uninitiated.. EM = Emergency Manager, EOC = Emergency Operations Centre
IAEM Discussion Group:
"I'm working the Red Cross EOC support for this event. We are now at 9 confirmed casualties. Approximately 57 transported to area hospitals. All indications are that the P-51 aircraft suffered a mechanical failure at maximum speed (500 MPH) The aircraft impacted adjacent to grandstands and hit a box seating area. There was no fire, but an explosion of debris on impact.
The air race association and local EM's run multiple full-scale exercises to test emergency capabilities for an incident like this. We did 2 major exercises this May involving air crashes. As a result, the response to this disaster was amazing. All patients were transported to area medical facilities within 62 minutes of the crash. Substantial resources were pre-staged at the event and regional hospitals are prepared to handle up to 150 mass casualties in this manner.
I will get more info as I get it and will share AAR's as I obtain them."
..................
---IAEM email discussion group
And that about sums it up.
As I mentioned elsewhere- one other thing to remember- neither that pilot, nor the plane, would have been up there, if they hadn't passed EXTENSIVE FAA certification inspections and checkups. The parts on those planes are probably checked to a level second only to the NASA space launch rocket engines. Parts are regularly retired, JUST because they have been used a certain number of times- NOT because they show signs of failure. Parts in these planes RARELY get to a detectable failure sign, before the hours are up, and they're replaced already.
This is not a squint-and-hope-for-the-best affair. There's some serious planning, preparation and professionalism here. That said... random failure is ALWAYS a part of life. Just like when a well-inspected bridge collapses... or when a random part failure in an electrical substation causes a blackout. No amount of inspection or "nanny mentality" will ever remove all risk.
As long as just prudence is being taken, that's all I ask. As long as the risks are readily apparent to all participants before anyone enters into the event, all's fair in the world, IMHO...
Regards,
Gordon.
shelly_d
Not An Audiophool
Perhaps less then you might expect. All the modified aircraft flying at Reno become Experimental and are registered as such. The regs on Experimental cover everything from a 10 hp putt putt to the Reno beasts. All Experimental designs are reviewed before they are allowed to fly, so the modifications were not a surprise to the FAA as an organization.
Shelly_D
myu701
Vintage futurist
Well, if the fault is due to something that was modified... there you go. "Experimental aircraft" means "dangerous to human life." We don't have crowds gathered around USAF experimental aircraft take-off and landing tests, because... there could be equipment failure.
I don't mind airshows, as long as it is with totally OEM aircraft that has gone through extensive maintenance. Even then, things can go wrong. I was in the USAF and had a friend who got seriously hurt while attending an airshow at Ramstein Air Base in Germany. A pilot made a mistake, sending a modern jet fighter into a nearby crowd. He was very lucky to survive. His friend at the show was not.
About the only kind of air show I feel OK attending are the ones with those good ol' bi-planes. You never hear about crowd fatalities at those kinds of airshow events.
I don't mind airshows, as long as it is with totally OEM aircraft that has gone through extensive maintenance. Even then, things can go wrong. I was in the USAF and had a friend who got seriously hurt while attending an airshow at Ramstein Air Base in Germany. A pilot made a mistake, sending a modern jet fighter into a nearby crowd. He was very lucky to survive. His friend at the show was not.
About the only kind of air show I feel OK attending are the ones with those good ol' bi-planes. You never hear about crowd fatalities at those kinds of airshow events.
A wing-walker fell to his death earlier this year...
That was the same weekend as the wingwalker, and another jet pilot from the UK died. But none of these were crowd fatalities...they were people doing something they loved to do. Nobody seems to want to admit it, but the reason that something like a wing-walker is exciting to watch, is that the person is in danger. Nobody pays to see a seat-sitter or wing hugger. Its the nature of seeking thrills. As I said earlier, we live in a society devoid of adrenaline. Our bodies aren't used to that...they're programmed for its release and build up. So we seek out things that are thrilling to us, and one of those things is airshows. Its why we love scary movies. Its why we skydive and bungee jump. And none of those things except scary movies are entirely without risk. Even then you could have a heart attack at the movies. Watching a Stearman Biplane or Curtis Jenny fly slowly by isn't going to get me to many airshows, though I love biplanes. People love planes, and they love jets. Certain things had to change, like after that horrific crash in Germany 20 years ago where jets collided over the crowd. But there will always be a certain amount of risk due to the nature of what it is. Anybody that goes should be aware of it. Maybe they are more upfront about it, but when I see an entire weekend of news dominated by it, I think that people who aren't aware probably aren't ever going to be.
shelly_d
Not An Audiophool
OEM does not necessarily mean safe either. A number of years ago an F86 Saber Jet, completely stock, ran off the end of a runway on takeoff in Sacramento, crashed into an Ice Cream Parlor across the street from the end of the runway killing several people, including children I believe. Risk exists and tragedies happen.
Shelly_D
The guy said the only airshows he liked were the ones with biplanes, I just pointed out that there was a pilot killed in a biplane just a few weeks previous.
Crashes are, by nature, unpredictable. The fellow in this biplane accident got into trouble low and away from the crowd, so he crashed a ways from the spectators. But a structural failure, for example, at a higher altitude could allow an out of control airplane to drift into the spectators. Being unpredictable, it's hard to predict that that would ever happen. It's also hard to say it never could.
Absolutely. Anytime something is up, it must come down. There should be regulations dictating how close those up things can be to us, but I don't want to see the shows cancelled outright. There will never be a complete lack of risk. But as others have said, life isn't without risks. I walked outside of my apartment 2 years ago to be confronted with the sheet-covered body of a woman who had been run over by a bus as she stepped out of a coffee shop. Its far more dangerous, statistically speaking, to walk around Chicago, I would think, than to go to an airshow. But I'm not moving to the country to avoid the danger...we make our bets and live or die with the roll of the dice.
shelly_d
Not An Audiophool
There actually are regulations about that. Organizers and Air Boss' at air shows work long and hard for a very long time to organize the "air show box", flying demonstrations, seating and static displays, and all sorts of other details to keep spectators and running engines and moving vehicles of ALL types apart. They do their job well.
Lets remember that this was an air race, not an air show. Big difference in airspeeds. While military aerobatic teams like the Blue Angles or Thunderbirds reach the speeds that these racers reach (and sometimes more) no prop driven aircraft at an airshow will top out over 400 mph. The news reports I've seen have mentioned 500 mph for this race. That might be an exaggeration on the high side but it may not be by much. At one time there were many closed course air races in this country. Now the only ones I know about are the ones at Reno. Yes they do represent a higher risk to the public then a typical airshow because of their speed and experimental nature of the aircraft, but I believe it would be a shame to see it go away. It might be possible to revamp the course so that the turns are further separated from the spectators, allowing greater separation for those moments of the race when the racer is pointed at the crowd but these will never be without risk.
Shelly_D
