"Mass casualties" at crash at Nevada airshow

[I Ratant]

Dropped his glasses?

.
At 10 g's, his glasses and his head would be on the floor of the cockpit.
The change in the loading on the plane would be instantaneous... no gradual build-up, as occurs when entering a turn.
The purpose of that trim tab is to make the plane flyable at very high speeds. The pilot doesn't have to hold the control surface in position. The airloads on the surface can be more than a person can put in through the control stick.
At those speeds, the required control inputs are small.
Loss of the tab means the plane's "trim" is now seriously out of position for the speed, and the plane will move to a "trimmed" condition, which, due to the speed, results in the enormous load on the plane in the ensuing pitch-up.
.
http://www.warbird.com/voodoo.html

 

[Sherman Bay]

Most of the injuries seem to be shrapnel from news accounts.

Them news accounts sure are deadly. Was it Fox? Must ban before it happens again.

 

[Furcifer]

Do you have evidence that better eyesight and reflexes outweigh extensive experience? Because I don't buy your underlying premise there.

Well yes, it doesn't matter how much experience you have, if you're eyesight is bad you can't get a license. If you have epilepsy, it doesn't matter how much experience you have you don't get a license. If you've had a stroke, it doesn't matter how much experience you have you can't hold a license.

Experience counts in order to get a licence, but holding onto one is all about being physically fit.

 

[Furcifer]

If what actually happened is determined to be the same as my (and many others) hunch about what happened, it wouldn't have mattered how old the guy was. As I said earlier, regardless of age he would have needed a vaild medical certificate for the kind of flying he was doing.

All true. I'm just saying it's odd given the type of flying we're talking about. I don't know if there's a special licence or physical requirement for stunt flying, but there should be IMO. It's one thing for some old guy to be flying a plane here and there and quite another to be flying in an airshow.

I just keep seeing the Seinfeld episode with the old guy challenging Jerry to a weight lifting match "It's go time!". The elderly aren't exactly known for knowing when to hang up their hat. My great grandmother, god rest her soul, should not have been driving a car for as long as she did. Yet for some reason they kept giving her a licence. I think it's changed since then, but the heck if she didn't end up in people's front lawns once a month until she physically couldn't get behind the wheel anymore.

 

[Furcifer]

.
The pilot did nothing after the initial pullup. He was unconscious.
The survivors of similar incidents were unconscious also due to the severity of the g-load, but went up instead of rolling, giving them time to recover.

And I don't mean to suggest his age played any part in this accident. I just thought it was odd someone that old was flying in an airshow. From what I've heard having been at a few of the Red Bull races flying can be quite physically demanding. It's slightly different and I don't think what he was doing was anywhere near what they do in those races.

 

[I Ratant]

The g's pulled in the corners in a race aren't as high as those encountered in aerobatics.
Pulling g takes energy from the plane, which slows it down.
It's the sudden change to 10 or more from the 2 to 3 in the race that cause the blackouts when this type of breakage has occurred.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well yes, it doesn't matter how much experience you have, if you're eyesight is bad you can't get a license. If you have epilepsy, it doesn't matter how much experience you have you don't get a license. If you've had a stroke, it doesn't matter how much experience you have you can't hold a license.

Experience counts in order to get a licence, but holding onto one is all about being physically fit.

Your answer is a non sequitur, the 74 yr old pilot passed his physical, and strokes are not a diagnosis confined to aged population. I once cared for a 4 yr old that had a stroke. He had a blood clot break loose from within his heart.

 

[Furcifer]

Your answer is a non sequitur, the 74 yr old pilot passed his physical, and strokes are not a diagnosis confined to aged population. I once cared for a 4 yr old that had a stroke. He had a blood clot break loose from within his heart.

Talk about a non sequitur. We're not talking about this man. Do you remember what you asked? Here it is again in case you forgot-

Do you have evidence that better eyesight and reflexes outweigh extensive experience? Because I don't buy your underlying premise there.

What does this 74 year old man passing is physical have to do with you above question? Nothing that's what. That's why your post is both ironic and very much a non sequitur.

It's a matter of fact, the physical ability to operate a vehicle greatly outweighs the "experience" factor. That's why I'm surprised that there was a 74 year old man up there.

As for the physical, I don't think you've ever gotten a physical if you're putting this much faith in them. As far as I know all that's required for a pilot's license is a Class 1 physical. They check you eyes, they check your blood pressure and they ask you if you've had any problems. It's not very extensive. For a commercial pilot they need a Class 3 which is more of a "physical". They poke and prod you so to speak. (here in Canada of course)

More importantly I was just wondering if it's the same for a 74 year old as a 30 year old? I know it's yearly, but surely you understand that from year to year a 30 year old isn't going to change much, but from 74 to 75 a lot of things can go wrong. Simply put, if a 30 year old has to go every year, I'd expect a 74 year old flying stunts over crowds to go every month. Maybe not that much but more than once a year like a pilot in the prime of his life.

In any event, this is probably the wrong thread for this. The guy died and it appears his age wasn't a factor so I don't want to sully that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Talk about a non sequitur. We're not talking about this man. Do you remember what you asked? Here it is again in case you forgot-

Do you have evidence that better eyesight and reflexes outweigh extensive experience? Because I don't buy your underlying premise there.

Yes, and then you added the risk of a potential health problem to the comparison. That's called a straw man, changing the original argument then debating the changed argument. Risk of a health problem has nothing to do with comparing better eyesight and reflexes to better knowledge. It's a non sequitur to answer a different question than was asked.

Compare the physical advantage of eyesight and reflexes of youth to the experience advantage of age. Period, end of comparison, those two things.

It's a matter of fact, the physical ability to operate a vehicle greatly outweighs the "experience" factor. That's why I'm surprised that there was a 74 year old man up there.

As for the physical, I don't think you've ever gotten a physical if you're putting this much faith in them. As far as I know all that's required for a pilot's license is a Class 1 physical. They check you eyes, they check your blood pressure and they ask you if you've had any problems. It's not very extensive. For a commercial pilot they need a Class 3 which is more of a "physical". They poke and prod you so to speak. (here in Canada of course)

More importantly I was just wondering if it's the same for a 74 year old as a 30 year old? I know it's yearly, but surely you understand that from year to year a 30 year old isn't going to change much, but from 74 to 75 a lot of things can go wrong. Simply put, if a 30 year old has to go every year, I'd expect a 74 year old flying stunts over crowds to go every month. Maybe not that much but more than once a year like a pilot in the prime of his life.

In any event, this is probably the wrong thread for this. The guy died and it appears his age wasn't a factor so I don't want to sully that.

Now you are making a completely different argument. Now you are comparing the risks of a potential health problem compared to age.

The evidence is that there is a U shaped curve for age and air crashes but older age is not a reason to deny a pilot's license except a commercial pilot's license. There is not evidence that supports your assertion there should be an age limit for all pilot licenses.

Pilot Age and Accident Rates Report 3: An Analysis of Professional Air Transport Pilot Accident Rates by Age

Overall, these analyses support the hypothesis that a "U"-shaped relationship exists between the age of professional pilots holding Class 1 medical and ATP certificates and the accident rate for operations under 14 CFR §121 and §135. However, the range of mean differences across age groups was very small and not statistically different when comparing adjacent age groups on either side of the current rule.
The results of this study are generally consistent with the conclusions reported by Golaszewski (1983, 1991, 1993) despite the use of different methods and samples. The results differ from the findings of the Hilton Systems, Incorporated. Kay et al. (1994) found that the accident rate decreased for younger pilots as they aged and then leveled off in the middle years. However, Kay et al. did not examine accident rates for Class 1 pilots older than age 59. The trend analyses in this study detected a "U"-shaped relationship between accident rates and age when pilots age 60 to 63 were included in the sample.

Page 8 has a review of other research findings.

What this means is that experience does mean more than reflexes. The U shape curve suggests very young and very old are both disadvantages for different reasons but one is not necessarily worse than the other.

Here's a forum discussion with a couple posts that contain more useful information.


Most studies involve commercial flights and don't look at pilots over 63. But I'm not challenging the point that elderly pilots might have more risk of fatal or incapacitating health event. A catastrophic health event is very different from your assertion that an older pilot's reflexes are a serious detriment. It does not appear that a catastrophic health event is a frequent cause of plane crashes.

 

[I Ratant]

That accident is solely a result of the control system of the airplane.
Pilot's age had no influence.

 

[Furcifer]

. Risk of a health problem has nothing to do with comparing better eyesight and reflexes to better knowledge. It's a non sequitur to answer a different question than was asked.

Rubbish. Diminished reflexes and eyesight are health problems. This is why they require constant physical evaluation.

The rest of your post is nonsense. Beyond qualification experience counts for nothing when it comes to operating a plane. In fact the most immediate concern is heath. Health outweighs experience, period.

It's not worth pursuing this tangent. It's woo. It's something nice we say about the elderly, but the fact is racing planes is a young man's game.

 

[Belz...]

There would have been many more if it hit the stands.

Sorry, doing three things at once means my writing is sometimes incomprehensible...

Oh. I thought you really just meant "rwguinn, to say the least."

 

[Furcifer]

That accident is solely a result of the control system of the airplane.
Pilot's age had no influence.

No, it's not that black and white.

I will say at this time it doesn't appear to have been a factor. But rarely do things just "happen". Would a younger pilot have spotted these indicators prior to the accident? Maybe, maybe not.

I just think it's interesting given the average age in North America is rising. There are going to be more incidents where the age of the operator is called into question. It would be foolish to play the "ageism" card every time something like this happens. I think on average people are in better shape for their age than they were 100 years ago. Practices may have to be reevaluated to reflect this. They may also have to be changed as the elderly become more of a rule than an exception. 100 years ago a 100 year old man driving a car was extremely rare, so was traffic for that matter. There wasn't any real danger to the public safety from this. Today it's much more real and much more of a problem. Things change and sometimes the response lags.

 

[JihadJane]

Rubbish. Diminished reflexes and eyesight are health problems. This is why they require constant physical evaluation.

The rest of your post is nonsense. Beyond qualification experience counts for nothing when it comes to operating a plane. In fact the most immediate concern is heath. Health outweighs experience, period.

It's not worth pursuing this tangent. It's woo. It's something nice we say about the elderly, but the fact is racing planes is a young man's game.

Maybe it should be a young woman's game. They are better car drivers.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Maybe it should be a young woman's game. They are better car drivers.

Evidence?


ETA: And under what metric of "better"?

 

[Furcifer]

Maybe it should be a young woman's game. They are better car drivers.

I've heard that as well. In general they have better response times and peripheral vision, and a few other things that make them marginally better.
I have no evidence, it's just something I remember from a show on Discovery.

I don't think it plays anywhere near as big a role as age when it comes to the big factors; hearing, vision, reflexes or response time when it comes to flying.

Then again this all based on fighter jets and "extreme" flying. I really don't think you have to be all that "astute" when it comes to flying most recreational planes. There's not a lot of traffic at 10000 feet.

I'm not all that familiar with how the licensing goes when it comes to planes, but when I heard he was 80 or 74 I just thought "Hmm, seems a little old to be doing that kind of flying". Sure he was licensed but did does the license and the physical test reflect the fact that he's racing planes over crowds or does it presume he's flying puddle hoppers to hunting camps in the North?

 

[I Ratant]

No, it's not that black and white.

I will say at this time it doesn't appear to have been a factor. But rarely do things just "happen". Would a younger pilot have spotted these indicators prior to the accident? Maybe, maybe not.

...

.
Catastrophic mechanical failures are just that.
The part is working, doing its job, and then it's gone.
With this failure, the airplane response is so immediate there's no "indication" that something is awry.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Rubbish. Diminished reflexes and eyesight are health problems. This is why they require constant physical evaluation.

The rest of your post is nonsense. Beyond qualification experience counts for nothing when it comes to operating a plane. In fact the most immediate concern is heath. Health outweighs experience, period.

It's not worth pursuing this tangent. It's woo. It's something nice we say about the elderly, but the fact is racing planes is a young man's game.

How is it you've posted over 11,000 posts in this forum and you think anyone will be convinced when you refute well researched citations with no more than your opinion?

 

[rwguinn]

.
Catastrophic mechanical failures are just that.
The part is working, doing its job, and then it's gone.
With this failure, the airplane response is so immediate there's no "indication" that something is awry.

The age of the airframe was probably a lot more of a factor than the age of the pilot...

 

[Checkmite]

The age of the airframe was probably a lot more of a factor than the age of the pilot...

I disagree. I bet there were very few parts actually on that airplane that were more than 15 or 20 years old.

As for eyesight and reflexes versus experience - of course they win. A 90-year-old with cataracts and arms he can barely move, but 70+ years of driving experience, cannot possibly operate an automobile as well and safely as a 20-year-old with intact faculties but only 3 years of driving experience. And yes that's an extreme case, but unless you believe there's a point at which infirmity cancels out experience rather than a scale whereby the former slowly but progressively undermines the latter, it makes the point.