"Mass casualties" at crash at Nevada airshow

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

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.

I hope you are not applying this to me because I have reason to draw attention to straw men that have been attributed to my post.

I agreed that Furcifer's other argument was with his wording but I got the concept he intended:

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. ...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Did you miss the rest of the discussion? I do believe we agreed in the end the plane hit just in front of the seats.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.....
And only threw up once. ...

I wonder how I would have done? I get sea sick easily, but was surprised that another passenger was in the back seat of the little 4 seater (sorry, no clue what type of plane) I flew in over the Nazca Lines in Peru. I wasn't the least bit queasy but that lady in back sure was. I imagine flying upside down or whatever would have been well past my tolerance limit.

 

[I Ratant]

We came back from Yurp in 1953 on a boat. A rocking, rolling, vibrating big boat.
I would carry an MS (maritime sickness) bag in my back pocket. And use it.
Did it one time at dinner time.
At the table with the little rails all around to keep the plates from sliding off.
Several people left the room.
Airsickness is awful.
Ya know they're not gonna land the plane just for you.
So you have to "enjoy" the experience.

 

[Furcifer]

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.

True.

I just thought it was odd someone would claim ageism for speculating on it being a factor. And they play naive about why it could have been a factor.

 

[I Ratant]

Ageism is always something to be considered in odd events.
We have numerous older (older than me) fogeys ramming their cars through lots of people and fixed objects, and sometimes never even noticing!

 

[Checkmite]

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

I'm sorry to put it this way, but I'm afraid you're really going to have to learn to communicate better; because upon rereading multiple times I cannot think of any way to interpret your original question, that my answer would not be a valid response to. It's pretty straight forward - the state of your "experience" doesn't affect your flight qualifications past the first issuance, while the state of your vision and reflexes has a continuous impact on them, lending those things greater importance de facto. All the experience in the world doesn't matter if you can't see properly or your body cannot respond to situations in time to avoid problems. Meanwhile, I don't see how a person who doesn't have those issues but has "only just" been awarded his license is "less trust- or otherwise-worthy" of flying an airplane when a required checkride with an FAA official has objectively established that he is perfectly capable of performing all of the actions required of a pilot.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

.
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.

The elevator itself would not have drifted/floated up as the controls for the tabs and elevators are necessarily independent, but the other trim tab may have, which could cause the sudden pitch up, resulting in g's that caused the pilot to become unconscious with the resulting crash.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I'm sorry to put it this way, but I'm afraid you're really going to have to learn to communicate better; because upon rereading multiple times I cannot think of any way to interpret your original question, that my answer would not be a valid response to. It's pretty straight forward - the state of your "experience" doesn't affect your flight qualifications past the first issuance, while the state of your vision and reflexes has a continuous impact on them, lending those things greater importance de facto. All the experience in the world doesn't matter if you can't see properly or your body cannot respond to situations in time to avoid problems. Meanwhile, I don't see how a person who doesn't have those issues but has "only just" been awarded his license is "less trust- or otherwise-worthy" of flying an airplane when a required checkride with an FAA official has objectively established that he is perfectly capable of performing all of the actions required of a pilot.

That's right, dig in those heels...

 

[Checkmite]

I'm sorry, was this tangent of discussion preventing you from talking about what you'd rather talk about? As far as I'm aware, you're still free to do so.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I'm sorry, was this tangent of discussion preventing you from talking about what you'd rather talk about? As far as I'm aware, you're still free to do so.

I'm sorry, I thought this was a place for open discussion of and in a skeptical manner. Does it bother you that your argument has been called out for what it is?*

Can you genuinely imagine no metric by which experience trumps physical ability when piloting an aircraft?




*note that this applies not only to you but everyone digging in their heels, on both sides, in that tangent.

 

[Checkmite]

I'm sorry, I thought this was a place for open discussion of and in a skeptical manner. Does it bother you that your argument has been called out for what it is?*

Like when Skeptic Ginger calls my argument a "strawman"? No; it doesn't bother me - but if I don't think it's true, I ask for clarification and otherwise keep going.

"Go ahead, keep digging in those heels" adds no information, it's just popcorn-throwing; an attempt to stifle or stop discussion, not promote or nurture it.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Like when Skeptic Ginger calls my argument a "strawman"? No; it doesn't bother me - but if I don't think it's true, I ask for clarification and otherwise keep going.

"Go ahead, keep digging in those heels" adds no information, it's just popcorn-throwing; an attempt to stifle or stop discussion, not promote or nurture it.

No, it was e reference to a previous post wherein I explained the problem with those discussing the tangent. A post you noticeably ignored. Much in the same manner in which you ignored the second half of my last post.

 

[LTC8K6]

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).

I don't think the P-51 could hit such speeds at sea level from the factory. So that's why I think there would be greater stress and a need to strengthen parts that poke out into the airstream.

But maybe not...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ageism is always something to be considered in odd events.
We have numerous older (older than me) fogeys ramming their cars through lots of people and fixed objects, and sometimes never even noticing!

Ouch!

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I don't think the P-51 could hit such speeds at sea level from the factory. So that's why I think there would be greater stress and a need to strengthen parts that poke out into the airstream.

But maybe not...

And the parts were probably 50+ years old. Lots of trim adjustments can happen over 50+ years... More than the factory built the airframe for.

But maybe not...


eta: it's probably a combination of both

 

[LTC8K6]

Now they are saying his seat may have broken? That he'd have been visible in the cockpit even if passed out...

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Now they are saying his seat may have broken? That he'd have been visible in the cockpit even if passed out...

That's a lot of g's and bad luck...

 

[LTC8K6]

And the parts were probably 50+ years old. Lots of trim adjustments can happen over 50+ years... More than the factory built the airframe for.

But maybe not...


eta: it's probably a combination of both

Then again, the planes are extensively rebuilt...

 

[Checkmite]

No, it was e reference to a previous post wherein I explained the problem with those discussing the tangent. A post you noticeably ignored.

Because it was, in essence, simply a demand to "stop talking about that". Of course I ignored it.

Much in the same manner in which you ignored the second half of my last post.

I suppose there's a metric by which "experience might count for more than physical ability"; but it seems contrary to common sense to me when we're talking about flying an aircraft - and in any case, I can actually point to written regulations which expressly define the "metric" I describe, whereas the other is a nebulous concept that can't be defined in the same way because it is dependent on subjective interpretation rather than objective observation. Yes, I always consider the latter to be more weighty than the former.