"Mass casualties" at crash at Nevada airshow

[Furcifer]

Perhaps you need to reread Checkmite's posts. Because that's exactly what he posted. More than once, I might add.

I did. I understand the context, you obviously didn't. The demand was for evidence physical ability outweighs experience. The evidence being at some point if you aren't physically able to fly NO AMOUNT OF EXPERIENCE can compensate.

At some point physical ability trumps experience. That's the tangent that arose from SG's weird comment.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I did. I understand the context, you obviously didn't. The demand was for evidence physical ability outweighs experience. The evidence being at some point if you aren't physically able to fly NO AMOUNT OF EXPERIENCE can compensate.

At some point physical ability trumps experience. That's the tangent that arose from SG's weird comment.

...and yet...all the physical fitness in the world won't trump the lack of experience required to acquire and/or maintain a pilot's license.

That being the case, Checkmite's argument as he presented it was that he could think of no point where experience outweighs physical ability. I pointed out that this was erroneous. He repeated his assertion, I again questioned it. I do believe you need to keep up with the conversation.


And, yes, I do understand what you're trying to say. What I'm telling you is that your assertion regarding physical ability trumping experience is wrong.

 

[BenBurch]

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

If so it likely wounded him.

 

[Furcifer]

I'm going to go over this because something isn't registering with people.

Nooch said- "80 year old's shouldn't be flying planes"
DR said - "Ageism noted"
I said- "Does that work both ways, because most 15 year old's have better reflexes and eyesight{physical ability} than 90 year olds"

The point being they prevent children from flying because of their age, so why not old people? Why is it ageism when they're old, but perfectly normal when they are at their physically fittest, which is probably the most important factor when it comes to flying.

The SG said do you have evidence that physical ability outweighs experience.

That's when it was pointed out that no amount of experience can compensate for diminished physical ability.

SG never said "Does physical ability ALWAYS outweighs experience?", that's a lie she's perpetuating.

If Checkmite has implied it, it's because if you don't pass the physical you ALWAYS fail to get a license. Of course if you don't have the experience you will ALWAYS fail to get a license as well.

 

[BenBurch]

...
And airflow is not constant--there are variations, all the time--and if you get into a flutter situation (Load variation frequency=natural frequency), the thing can go from "here to completely gone" in literally no time at all...

I've seen video of aircraft breaking up in flight. It's frighteningly fast at times.

 

[BenBurch]

This is what the seat position was originally, You'd see this guy even if he were passed out.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/5/2/1985254.jpg

But Leeward had the seat position moved radically...

Is there a diagram of his aircraft somewhere?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm about ready to put you on ignore, calling someone a liar is uncalled for. But I will try one more time only because I find these kind of communication perception errors interesting:

....

The SG said do you have evidence that physical ability outweighs experience.

That's when it was pointed out that no amount of experience can compensate for diminished physical ability.....

This is what you actually said first, your words, copied and pasted:

Does discrimination only work one way? 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.

The guy died so there's an immediate response of "He's a hero, he did what he could and saved lives" but you really have to wonder if a younger pilot might have avoided the accident altogether. Experience counts for something, but as far as I know there's a mandatory retirement age even in the Air Force. I think experience only counts for so much if you just don't have the reflexes and mental acuity to operate a plane at 500 mph.

Topic for another thread perhaps.

This is what I then asked:

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

(emphasis added)
This is what you answered:

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.

THAT IS NOT AN ANSWER TO WHAT I ASKED. IT IS HERE THAT READING COMPREHENSION BREAKS DOWN. Perhaps you missed or misunderstood I was questioning YOUR UNDERLYING PREMISE. That is the premise that youth and good reflexes trumps age and experience. I did not ask about your OVERT POINT, that of an older person WITH A SERIOUS HEALTH PROBLEM and experience would still do poorly compared to a less experienced healthy person. Your OVERT POINT was a no brainer but also not relevant since there is no evidence this pilot or ALL elderly pilots are going to have a serious health problem. The risks of sudden catastrophic health condition like a stroke or a heart attack are not equal in all older people. In addition, the risk of a catastrophic health event is a completely different issue and not one you specifically verbalized.


If you are arguing that a pilot with a serious health condition that interferes with his/her ability to fly will not be thwarted by the requirement of a physical, then where is your evidence of all these unhealthy pilots out there putting everyone on the ground at risk?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

SG never said "Does physical ability ALWAYS outweighs experience?", that's a lie she's perpetuating. ....

If I NEVER said it, how am I perpetuating it?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is there a diagram of his aircraft somewhere?

There are some useful images on the "Air Ranch" webpage.

 

[Locknar]

Ok folks, settle down..... Please keep the discussion civil/polite, on-topic and address the argument vs attack the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Furcifer]

That is the premise that youth and good reflexes trumps age and experience.

That's not the "underlying premise". There was no "underlying" premise. They prevent young people from flying based SOLELY on age (I don't know if it's 16, I actually recall it being younger but I believe it's changed). Why don't they prevent old people from flying SOLELY on age? Why is it "ageism" when it's old people but not when it's young people?

That's when you asked your rather strange question. It's almost rhetorical, if you can't physically operate a plane that trumps experience.

Plus your question didn't make sense, at least in terms of how the question was posed. If they prevented people from flying for lack of experience nobody could fly. It's a catch 22.

I never once said reflexes ALWAYS trump experience. I think that may have been inferred. I suppose in the sense that you ALWAYS have to pass the physical despite how much experience you have you could say it ALWAYS wins. But that would be misleading, because there are numerous cases, all things be equal, where experience could very well be more helpful in preventing an accident than reflexes or physical ability. Certainly "knowing" a plane is helpful. Likewise, experience with what typically goes wrong or what to spot on a plane during your walk around could play a much more deciding role in whether or not an accident happens.

But that has nothing to do with licensing, which was what I was talking about in the first place.

 

[I Ratant]

Max speed of the P-51 D was 437 mph (703 km/h)
For those who are unfamiliar with what they do, trim tabs are used to cause the airflow to deflect the Primary Flight Control surface. So, an elevator trim tab is deflected up to cause the elevator to deflect downwards, pointing the nose of the aircraft down, in relation to the relative wind.
Contrary to popular belief, the elevator does not make the plane go up; it simply raises and lowers the nose wrt the relative wind.If the elevator is in neutral position (Airplane flying level) and more power is added, the airplane will climb. Down elevator is applied to keep the plane flying at a constant altitude, and the result is more speed
So the trim tab is exposed to loading by the airflow--the higher the speed, the more force on the tab and its hinges and actuator.
And airflow is not constant--there are variations, all the time--and if you get into a flutter situation (Load variation frequency=natural frequency), the thing can go from "here to completely gone" in literally no time at all...

.
The elevator controls the airspeed. The nose is pushed down to go faster at any power setting.
And pulled up to slow down.
The motor power controls altitude. Add power, at a constant trim setting, and the plane goes up.
Reduce power, it descends.
The entire left vertical on one of our planes vanished in less than 1/3 of a second when flutter began.

 

[Furcifer]

If I NEVER said it, how am I perpetuating it?

Furcifer made the unsupported assertion that reflexes and eyesight of youth ALWAYS trumped the experience of age. I asked him to support that assertion. He has not.

There are plenty of cases where experience can prove more invaluable than physical fitness. I don't know why you made up this strawman and then denied doing so.

 

[rwguinn]

To all those engaged in the age thing--
The most accident prone pilots tend to be between 200 and 500 hours (which, possibly coincidentally is about what 25-35 year old pilots would have), because you have survived, and are now 10 feet tall and bullet proof....
But I will guarantee you that a 74 year old pilot, in good physical condition and with 1000 hours of high-performance aircraft operation under his belt will out-perform and be safer than a 25 year-old pilot with 2000 hours in single-engine GA aircraft.

 

[Huttosaurus]

To all those engaged in the age thing--
The most accident prone pilots tend to be between 200 and 500 hours (which, possibly coincidentally is about what 25-35 year old pilots would have), because you have survived, and are now 10 feet tall and bullet proof....
But I will guarantee you that a 74 year old pilot, in good physical condition and with 1000 hours of high-performance aircraft operation under his belt will out-perform and be safer than a 25 year-old pilot with 2000 hours in single-engine GA aircraft.

Just adding to that, bringing the age of the aircraft and it's components into a discussion like this is also a bit fraught. It isn't the absolute age of components that matters, it is the maintenance, upkeep and being fit for purpose. Technically it might (or given it's state of modification, parts of it might) have been old, but that isn't the obvious indicator it might seem to be.

Only mentioning this because 'aging' and the implications thereof seems to be a favourite media buzzword concerning news involving less than brand-new aircraft (often used in conjuction with 'plummet', 'slammed' etc).

 

[JihadJane]

If so it likely wounded him.

According to I Ratant

.
...his head would be on the floor of the cockpit.

 

[LTC8K6]

Max speed of the P-51 D was 437 mph (703 km/h)
For those who are unfamiliar with what they do, trim tabs are used to cause the airflow to deflect the Primary Flight Control surface. So, an elevator trim tab is deflected up to cause the elevator to deflect downwards, pointing the nose of the aircraft down, in relation to the relative wind.
Contrary to popular belief, the elevator does not make the plane go up; it simply raises and lowers the nose wrt the relative wind.If the elevator is in neutral position (Airplane flying level) and more power is added, the airplane will climb. Down elevator is applied to keep the plane flying at a constant altitude, and the result is more speed
So the trim tab is exposed to loading by the airflow--the higher the speed, the more force on the tab and its hinges and actuator.
And airflow is not constant--there are variations, all the time--and if you get into a flutter situation (Load variation frequency=natural frequency), the thing can go from "here to completely gone" in literally no time at all...

That's 437mph at 25,000 feet for the factory version.

Galloping Ghost could hit around 550mph at sea level.

Much higher speed in much thicker air.

This video illustrates how quickly this went wrong, no one could have recovered, and how much worse it might have been...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2011/09/19/mb-reno-air-crash-hewitt-winnipeg.html

 

[rwguinn]

Just adding to that, bringing the age of the aircraft and it's components into a discussion like this is also a bit fraught. It isn't the absolute age of components that matters, it is the maintenance, upkeep and being fit for purpose. Technically it might (or given it's state of modification, parts of it might) have been old, but that isn't the obvious indicator it might seem to be.

Only mentioning this because 'aging' and the implications thereof seems to be a favourite media buzzword concerning news involving less than brand-new aircraft (often used in conjuction with 'plummet', 'slammed' etc).

True. Even if they were new parts, of (or similar to) the original design, we don't know if the increase in performance was factored in.
Age is, once again, a function of stress level and number of cycles, when you are talking machinery.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

Yeah, sometimes fail to realize how many pages down a topic I am, sorry.

Hans

 

[Furcifer]

But I will guarantee you that a 74 year old pilot, in good physical condition and with 1000 hours of high-performance aircraft operation under his belt will out-perform and be safer than a 25 year-old pilot with 2000 hours in single-engine GA aircraft.

Well I have trouble believing that. Most 74 year old pilots are dead. I think you'd be hard pressed to find such a pilot to prove or disprove your theory.

More importantly however is that it's pretty obvious we don't know who is in good physical condition. I've read up on this now and the Class 1 medical isn't a "real" physical test. Not like a real physical test where they put you into actual physical stress, stress like you would see flying aerobatics in a plane, and see how you respond.
My grandmother still has her driving license and drives pretty well. But the heck if that means she's capable of driving a 1000hp Formula 1 car. If she went out and bought one and started racing it on the weekends I really doubt all of her "experience" and license would amount to anything. We'd think she had a death wish. But if it's a 74 year old man flying aerobatics in a plane he's "experienced"? I'm afraid that's wishful thinking.

Unless flying a plane is a lot easier than it looks, and a lot easier than people like to claim, this notion of some 74 year old pilot being just as good as a 25 year old is pure fantasy. This may have been just an accident, but it sure sounds like an accident waiting to happen.