"Mass casualties" at crash at Nevada airshow

[I Ratant]

The pilot..... any pilot of any age in THAT airplane at that time... was not functioning.
He was unconscious.

 

[AdMan]

The pilot..... any pilot of any age in THAT airplane at that time... was not functioning.
He was unconscious.

I agree you are probably right.

Perhaps unavoidably, some in the media have been claiming that the pilot did his best to prevent an even worse disaster.

While it is nice to think that, I can't see how anyone could believe it given the photo with the "empty" cockpit instants before the crash, and the other accounts of similar (near) accidents in other air races.

I know that age was probably not an issue, but could a younger pilot have regained consciousness faster after blacking out?

 

[rwguinn]

I agree you are probably right.

Perhaps unavoidably, some in the media have been claiming that the pilot did his best to prevent an even worse disaster.

While it is nice to think that, I can't see how anyone could believe it given the photo with the "empty" cockpit instants before the crash, and the other accounts of similar (near) accidents in other air races.

I know that age was probably not an issue, but could a younger pilot have regained consciousness faster after blacking out?

Doubtful, if he blacked out--no time.
The other pilot (in your link) climbed 9000 feet before he recovered-I don't think this guy got more than 1000--it was really quick.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

You also are changing the argument to argue a straw man. A 90 yr old with cataracts would not qualify for a pilot's license. It's not what the original issue was at all.

Here, let me suggest an analogous straw man. Who would fly better, a mentally disabled person with an IQ of 40 and good reflexes or an experienced older pilot who needed glasses?

 

[Furcifer]

.
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.

Pure speculation at this point.

"Catastrophic failure" does not mean there wasn't any indication before hand, or that it couldn't have been avoided.

 

[rwguinn]

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.

See http://www2.leewardairranch.com/racing/history/cleveland for the airframe history.
Under any circumstances, the airframe of the GG was at least 35 years old, since it won at Mojave in 1975.
Fatigue, in aluminum, is cumulative and always, unlike with steel, leads to eventual failure. It also does not require a lot of time--age in Aluminum is a function only of the number of cycles and stress level...
I don't know that this was the problem, and neither does anyone else. Under the current hypothesis of a SCS failure, airframe age is as likely a problem as anything else.

 

[rwguinn]

Pure speculation at this point.

"Catastrophic failure" does not mean there wasn't any indication before hand, or that it couldn't have been avoided.

That's pretty much the definition of "catastrophic failure" in engineering terms...

 

[Pantaz]

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

Incorrect. Not counting avionics, fasteners, and oil/fuel/hydraulic lines, the mechanical bits are generally "OEM". They may be rebuilt/refurbished, but the latest they were manufactured, IIRC, is around the time of the Korean War.

 

[Checkmite]

Incorrect. Not counting avionics, fasteners, and oil/fuel/hydraulic lines, the mechanical bits are generally "OEM". They may be rebuilt/refurbished, but the latest they were manufactured, IIRC, is around the time of the Korean War.

I will abdicate, as you sound like you know of the particulars better than I.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Pure speculation at this point.

...

Riiiiight. There are pictures of the elevator trim tab coming off mid-air just before the plane went out of control.

 

[Checkmite]

You also are changing the argument to argue a straw man. A 90 yr old with cataracts would not qualify for a pilot's license. It's not what the original issue was at all.

Here, let me suggest an analogous straw man. Who would fly better, a mentally disabled person with an IQ of 40 and good reflexes or an experienced older pilot who needed glasses?

IIRC, once you've got your pilot's license, all you need to do to renew it is pass a physical periodically. You remember those - you had to take them before being allowed to go to summer camp. It's vitals, plus turning-your-head-and-coughing, and that's pretty much it. The third-class physical exam required for the private pilot's license renewal does not require stress tests, ECGs, or any measure of mental faculty outside of being A&Ox3 in a seated, rested position and no diagnosed history of severe mental illness. The physicals are good for five years.

 

[rwguinn]

IIRC, once you've got your pilot's license, all you need to do to renew it is pass a physical periodically. You remember those - you had to take them before being allowed to go to summer camp. It's vitals, plus turning-your-head-and-coughing, and that's pretty much it. The third-class physical exam required for the private pilot's license renewal does not require stress tests, ECGs, or any measure of mental faculty outside of being A&Ox3 in a seated, rested position and no diagnosed history of severe mental illness. The physicals are good for five years.

BZZT!
Wrong, but thank you for playing.
The Commercial Pilots license physical is considerably more involved. which you have to have to fly if money changes hands, like air racing
See 14 CFR Part 67.
And were you following the thread, it was mentioned that it is a YEARLY requirement for pilots over age 40 for a class 2 (6 months for 1st class)

 

[Furcifer]

You also are changing the argument to argue a straw man. A 90 yr old with cataracts would not qualify for a pilot's license. It's not what the original issue was at all.

No he isn't. You're either being dense or you don't understand experience doesn't count for crap if you can't operate a plane. It trumps experience, which was what you were asking about in the first place.

How it played out in this case is unknown.

 

[Checkmite]

BZZT!
Wrong, but thank you for playing.
The Commercial Pilots license physical is considerably more involved. which you have to have to fly if money changes hands, like air racing
See 14 CFR Part 67.
And were you following the thread, it was mentioned that it is a YEARLY requirement for pilots over age 40 for a class 2 (6 months for 1st class)

Oops - you're right! But you're also wrong - the physical is only different insofar as vision requirements, and nothing else. It's not considerably more involved at all.

 

[Furcifer]

Riiiiight. There are pictures of the elevator trim tab coming off mid-air just before the plane went out of control.

What does that have to do with events that happened prior to that? You just don't understand what's being discussed here. Sorry, I thought it was pretty clear to everyone.

 

[Furcifer]

That's pretty much the definition of "catastrophic failure" in engineering terms...

That there's no indication? That doesn't make sense. I've seen catastrophic failure testing. The whole purpose is to observe and record what happens prior to the failure.

I thought the engineering definition was something along the lines of "stressing or deforming something to the point that it no longer functions as it was intended".

 

[BenBurch]

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

And a note on topic; I could find only one trim tab mentioned in an accident involving a P-51 in the NTSB database, MIA72FKH10, wherein a P-51D crashed into water with bits of the rudder trim tab found miles away.

 

[rwguinn]

And a note on topic; I could find only one trim tab mentioned in an accident involving a P-51 in the NTSB database, MIA72FKH10, wherein a P-51D crashed into water with bits of the rudder trim tab found miles away.

You didn't look very deep--it was an incident, not accident

Button describes what happened to his airplane in Saturday's heat race. Apparently, the left elevator trim tab came off the airplane at speed, causing the bird to abruptly pitch up, subjecting driver Hannah to over 10 G's of deceleration forces, and causing him to lose conciousness! When he came to, the raceplane had climbed to over 9,000 feet of altitude. A shaken Hannah regained control and brought Voodoo in for a safe landing. Suspected structural damage kept the sleek raceplane out of Sun

from here http://www.warbird.com/voodoo.html

it happened to voodoo in 1998

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Assuming the communication error is everyone's fault but one's own does not facilitate a discussion. Reviewing the posts is sometimes a better approach.

No he isn't. You're either being dense or you don't understand experience doesn't count for crap if you can't operate a plane. It trumps experience, which was what you were asking about in the first place.

How it played out in this case is unknown.

Let's review who it is that isn't paying attention to the discussion:

...I'd have to say just about every 15 year old I've met has had better reflexes and eye sight than just about every 80 year old I've met. I have to agree with people who have observed that 74 or 80 is a little too old to be flying in air shows like this. ....

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.

Show me where in the bolded post you noted you were speaking of a person who didn't qualify for a pilot's license because of their failed eyesight, they had epilepsy, or had had a stroke.

Explain to me how my comment, "better eyesight and reflexes", is the same as "better than someone with a stroke, cataracts and epilepsy".

Show me where Checkmite's comment, "cataracts and arms he can barely move", is contained in my question. Show me where it was in your declaration, "every 15 year old ... had better reflexes and eye sight than just about every 80 year old".

What does [pictures of the elevator trim tab coming off mid-air] have to do with events that happened prior to that? You just don't understand what's being discussed here. Sorry, I thought it was pretty clear to everyone.

Let's review:

Pure speculation at this point.

"Catastrophic failure" does not mean there wasn't any indication before hand, or that it couldn't have been avoided.

catastrophic failure

Definition
Sudden and drastic change in the operating characteristics of a material, product, or system resulting in total loss of useful performance.

FFA Definitions:

Critical Characteristic. Any feature throughout the life cycle of a flight safety-critical aircraft part (FSCAP) which, if nonconforming, missing, or degraded, could cause a catastrophic failure resulting in loss or serious damage to the aircraft or an uncommanded engine shutdown resulting in an unsafe condition. ...

Flight Safety-Critical Aircraft Part. Any part, assembly, or installation containing a critical characteristic whose failure, malfunction, or absence could cause (1) a catastrophic failure resulting in loss or serious damage to the aircraft, or (2) an uncommanded engine shutdown resulting in an unsafe condition. ...

Perhaps had you said, that is what probably caused the crash, but the cause of the catastrophic failure will need to include how/why the part fell off, your point would have been more clear. And perhaps if you weren't always in pissing contest mode, you might have worded your post that way.

 

[Checkmite]

Show me where Checkmite's comment, "cataracts and arms he can barely move", is contained in my question. Show me where it was in your declaration, "every 15 year old ... had better reflexes and eye sight than just about every 80 year old".

I don't see where there's the problem here.

You said "a 90 yr old with cataracts would not qualify for a pilot's license", as if this proves my assertion wrong. Except that it doesn't. You completely missed the point. The 90-year-old with cataracts and poor reflexes may at one time have certainly qualified for a pilot's license; may have held said license for decades (thus attaining the mystical "experience" we're talking about); and yet, his recently-developed worsening eyesight and reflexes have put an end to his qualification; all his experience is meaningless in that regard. Whereas the 15-year-old, who does not have poor vision and still has excellent reflexes and range of motion...to wit: the ability to safely operate the aircraft...can qualify for his student license and fly without so much as a single year under his belt. It is a simple truth that his better eyesight and reflexes make him more qualified than the experienced nonagenarian.