"Mass casualties" at crash at Nevada airshow

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Ice is cold and water is wet. Do you care?

Who are you arguing with? Who do you think cares that a 90 yr old with cataracts can't get a pilot's license? Certainly no one in this thread.

I asked Furcifer to show some evidence of his claim, reflexes and the eyesight of youth trump pilot experience. I cited a thorough study that found inexperience was a significant variable in air crashes.

I did not say good eyesight and reflexes trump experience in cataract, epileptic, stroke victim, crippled pilots.

 

[Checkmite]

Ice is cold and water is wet. Do you care?

Who are you arguing with? Who do you think cares that a 90 yr old with cataracts can't get a pilot's license? Certainly no one in this thread.

Well somebody sure did; they asked whether having better eyesight and reflexes should trump experience when it comes to flying. The FAA obviously seems to think so, because they say if your eyesight and reflexes are bad enough you can't fly at all, no matter how much experience you have.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well somebody sure did; they asked whether having better eyesight and reflexes should trump experience when it comes to flying. The FAA obviously seems to think so, because they say if your eyesight and reflexes are bad enough you can't fly at all, no matter how much experience you have.

(emphasis mine)
Prove it! Post the quote you claim here.

Since when does "experience" include "stroke", "cataracts", "barely move arms", and "epilepsy"?

 

[Checkmite]

Yes, here:

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

The evidence is the fact that the FAR's require pilots' physical abilities (such as vision) to be regularly retested in order to maintain flight status, but don't have stacking experience requirements for doing so.

 

[Checkmite]

Since when does "experience" include "stroke", "cataracts", "barely move arms", and "epilepsy"?

You asked for evidence that physical condition outweighs experience; it has been provided. A pilot who has flown only 1000 hours total has exactly the same standing as a pilot of the same age with the same certificate who has flown 20,000 hours. However, if one of those pilots' vision ever deteriorates beyond an acceptable level, he will lose his flying privileges, no matter how many hours he has flown. Therefore, physical requirements outweigh experience.

 

[Furcifer]

Again for clarity...

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.

I don't know what you're going on about in the above. Sorry.

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

It's not

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?

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.

I don't know what you're talking about here either.

It's not a pissing contest. You made a rather strange statement and demanded evidence which was presented, but you don't seem satisfied by what you've been given. Here's your statement again for clarity:

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

It's pretty obvious the physical requirements of flying outweigh extensive experience. Perhaps you might want to rethink the question yourself? I see you struggling with an idea here, but you're not asking the right questions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh for pity's sake. I spell out your straw men in quotes and you both still insist on arguing straw men. Sigh....

 

[BenBurch]

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

I am aware of the distinction, but it is the accident database I searched.

ETA: I was attempting to provide another source of data. BTW, there were several that simply broke up in the air due to airframe overload.

 

[richardm]

Would a younger pilot have spotted these indicators prior to the accident? Maybe, maybe not.

Maybe, maybe not. As we've seen, Bob Hannah had what appears to be the same failure on a similar aircraft and he didn't spot any indicators and had no opportunity to do anything about it once the tab failed. It was just pure luck that Voodoo didn't roll but kept going up until he recovered consciousness.

He was 42 years old at the time. I think that people who are trying to blame the pilot for the accident really are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[BenBurch]

The thing that is interesting about the trim tab is that a trim tab could fail and cause an excursion from flight path severe enough to render the pilot unconscious, or something else could have happened to cause an excursion just prior, and the strong elevator response required blew the tab.

 

[richardm]

The thing that is interesting about the trim tab is that a trim tab could fail and cause an excursion from flight path severe enough to render the pilot unconscious, or something else could have happened to cause an excursion just prior, and the strong elevator response required blew the tab.

I do believe I've seen pictures with the trim tab damaged as Galloping Ghost came around the pylon quite close to another aircraft, so perhaps he was making adjustments to his flightpath to gain advantage on that aircraft (or keep clear of it) in the turn and unexpectedly overcooked it.

Or perhaps it was just waiting to fail all day; clearly without the tab the tendency of the aircraft was to pitch sharply up, so the strains on that part at one of the fastest parts of the course must have been considerable. Maybe that's something the investigators can figure out.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You asked for evidence that physical condition outweighs experience; it has been provided. A pilot who has flown only 1000 hours total has exactly the same standing as a pilot of the same age with the same certificate who has flown 20,000 hours. However, if one of those pilots' vision ever deteriorates beyond an acceptable level, he will lose his flying privileges, no matter how many hours he has flown. Therefore, physical requirements outweigh experience.

Yes. If the only metric is "the ability to retain/obtain one's pilot's license".

By another metric, the experience outweighs the better vision/fitness.


But, who cares about that, it's more important for each side to dig in it's heels and accuse the other side of being 'more wrong' than it is to actually get to the real meat of the matter.

 

[LTC8K6]

I wonder if they are adequately strengthening the trim tabs? They would be under much greater stress in the modified aircraft than they ever would have been in the plane's wartime service.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I wonder if they are adequately strengthening the trim tabs? They would be under much greater stress in the modified aircraft than they ever would have been in the plane's wartime service.

I think their purpose was misrepresented earlier in this thread. Trim tabs serve no purpose other than to "zero" the flight control surfaces to make flying easier on the pilot (counters offset centers of gravity, large loads, etc) as the pilot needn't continually make minor adjustments to the stick to fly straight and true. (ETA: It's usually set prior to take off and only varies, if at all, as fuel is used)

In this incident, the aluminum had probably stressed from being set one too many times and the attachment points failed.

Now, whether the speeds at which the aircraft was flying were too great for the trim tab or whether the trim tab was aged too greatly and therefore too weak has yet to be determined. Personally, I'm leaning toward the "aged too greatly" side of the coin. Given their purpose/design, there wouldn't necessarily be more force exerted on the trim tab than the rest of the control surface (in fact, it could be less depending on how the trim was set).

 

[BenBurch]

I wonder if they are adequately strengthening the trim tabs? They would be under much greater stress in the modified aircraft than they ever would have been in the plane's wartime service.

War service was capable of putting any imaginable degree of stress on an aircraft, up to point of structural disintegration. You are trying to stay alive, and other considerations become irrelevant.

 

[rwguinn]

War service was capable of putting any imaginable degree of stress on an aircraft, up to point of structural disintegration. You are trying to stay alive, and other considerations become irrelevant.

True-within the wartime flight envelope.
These are highly modified, and flying 450-500mph at near sea level, for 500 miles. the down-trim required for level flight at full throttle is large, and the original design did not account for that over such a long period (several tens of such flights)
I'm waiting the preliminary accident report, due later this week.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The reports are all that the plane went into the box seats, not the runway, rwguinn.

No, not all. It it went into (occupied) seats, the death toll would be higher.

The fact there was no fireball, it was a small plane and there was a lot of on scene medical support could account for a low death toll.

A P51 normally weighs about 3.5 tons empty, probably a least half a ton less in a racing configuration (no guns, no armour, no self-sealing tanks).

In air races, they fly with a minimum of fuel, that is the reason for the lack of a fireball.

And observers are reporting the plane wobbled as one would with mechanical difficulties, so it's premature to blame the guy's age. As long as he passed a sufficient medical exam, there are healthy 80 yr olds out there.

High age is an increased risk, but you are right that it should not right away be assumed to be the cause.

Hans

 

[I Ratant]

I am aware of the distinction, but it is the accident database I searched.

ETA: I was attempting to provide another source of data. BTW, there were several that simply broke up in the air due to airframe overload.

.
On another forum, the fanboys are upset that the accident itself is being discussed.
I guess they prefer the "hear no evil" world, where only good things happen to their heroes.. such as the idea that the pilot did his best to miss the crowd.. when it's painfully obvious the pilot was out of the loop entirely after the initial pitch-up.
None of these planes are factory new, and it's probable they have reached the end of their useful lives, with parts failing due to fatigue.
With 2 (and more) accidents/incidents in a very small group of planes, those few events are statistically significant, and the FAA could in good faith ground them all!

 

[I Ratant]

The thing that is interesting about the trim tab is that a trim tab could fail and cause an excursion from flight path severe enough to render the pilot unconscious, or something else could have happened to cause an excursion just prior, and the strong elevator response required blew the tab.

.
I looked for a diagram of the P-51 elevator control system, but couldn't find one.
I surmise the elevator trim system failed entirely when the first tab broke off, with the other tab going to streamlined, affording no stick force relief and letting the elevator float to a streamlined position, with the consequent serious pitch-up.
If that is the case, possibly the trim system could be redesigned to not lose all authority when one side fails.
Some trimming effect from the working trim tab would still be available to lessen the effect of the loss.
Dunno.
We'll have to wait.

 

[I Ratant]

War service was capable of putting any imaginable degree of stress on an aircraft, up to point of structural disintegration. You are trying to stay alive, and other considerations become irrelevant.

.
I had a couple of flights as passenger in the Vans Nuys Mustang Club P-51, the Cavalier modification with the second seat.
For a kid growing up in WWII, that has to be the PEAK of any and every experience of my life before or since!
That Merlin bellowing up front with that monster prop going around.. and the g's in loops.. My goodness... I died and went to heaven a couple times.

In that type of airplane, you have complete control of the whole WORLD!
You can put the world anywhere you want it!

And only threw up once.
Prolly oughta DVD the movies I took.

That plane not long after did a Figure-9 into the desert east of here. Parts were found along the flight path towards the impact hole. The flier was pulling his absolute best.. to lose parts off a P-51 in flight!
It hit hard enough to de-chrome the control stick!