"Mass casualties" at crash at Nevada airshow

[rwguinn]

The differences between a P-51 and a Cessna 172 are considerably more pronounced than the differences between a Yugo and NASCAR...

 

[Furcifer]

The differences between a P-51 and a Cessna 172 are considerably more pronounced than the differences between a Yugo and NASCAR...

Do you mean relatively? There's nothing more pronounced than the difference between a Yugo and a NASCAR. It's really the greatest possible difference imaginable (at least it's implied. The difference between a Honda C600 or maybe an old 3 wheeled Mercedes and a top fuel dragster may be more pronounced all things considered)

In the flying world I think that would amount to the difference between something like an ultralight and the space shuttle. Are the P-51 and the Cessna really that different?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Hans

No worries. I read threads and post replies the in the same pattern. I hate it when I hit preview or submit and find what I thought was a new thread actually is years old or there are a dozen pages.

But I digress....

 

[BenBurch]

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.

Not relevant here, but recent time in type matters.

There are any number of commercial pilots who every day flew heavies that got in trouble when they decided to rent a Cessna 180 and fly somewhere for the weekend.

 

[richardm]

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

The seating position was pretty low; I don't find it too hard to believe that with his head pressed down to his chest by the G-forces and with the camera angle being just-so that he might not be visible.

If it was that, well, maybe it was his body arriving on the floor that initiated the roll.

Edit: Have just had a quick google round to see if I can find anything about the broken seat -

(There is another photo which seems to show a broken seat flying through air at impact.)

You don't say?

 

[Checkmite]

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.

I disagree.

Yes, younger and inexperienced individuals at whatever they're doing can be cocky. But experience is not an inoculation against this. I would venture to say there's probably a threshold past which experience ceases to be cumulatively useful.

It has been my experience, reinforced multiple times, that it is common for "older, experienced" individuals to feel justified in cutting corners and disregarding or bending procedures or safety regulations which they feel their "experience" has taught them "aren't important". They tend to have developed their "own way" of doing things and will ignore or at the very least disrespect changes (which are based on new and better information and understanding) because they think they know better. This is by no means true of all; but it's not rare by any means.

ETA: to add something of an example; as I take auto tech classes at the local community college, there are some mature-to-middle-aged people taking the classes along side me. Many of them are cool - particularly the ones who haven't been working as mechanics for a long time. I've seen two however, who obviously "know all this stuff already", repeatedly disregard rules and procedures the instructors have set down during classroom briefings - using impact wrenches to install lugnuts, scoffing at the idea of supporting suspension components when working with them on a raised vehicle, and never using safety glasses, for instance.

I'm not saying it happened in this case, but I can quite easily see a 74 year old experienced pilot completely blowing off a younger mechanic or tech who tells him that his plane's airframe is growing fatigued and might not be able to take the same stresses it used to.

 

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Eagle's Eye
(There is another photo which seems to show a broken seat flying through air at impact.)
.
EVERYTHING on the airplane broke at impact!

 

[rwguinn]

I disagree.

Yes, younger and inexperienced individuals at whatever they're doing can be cocky. But experience is not an inoculation against this. I would venture to say there's probably a threshold past which experience ceases to be cumulatively useful.

It has been my experience, reinforced multiple times, that it is common for "older, experienced" individuals to feel justified in cutting corners and disregarding or bending procedures or safety regulations which they feel their "experience" has taught them "aren't important". They tend to have developed their "own way" of doing things and will ignore or at the very least disrespect changes (which are based on new and better information and understanding) because they think they know better. This is by no means true of all; but it's not rare by any means.

ETA: to add something of an example; as I take auto tech classes at the local community college, there are some mature-to-middle-aged people taking the classes along side me. Many of them are cool - particularly the ones who haven't been working as mechanics for a long time. I've seen two however, who obviously "know all this stuff already", repeatedly disregard rules and procedures the instructors have set down during classroom briefings - using impact wrenches to install lugnuts, scoffing at the idea of supporting suspension components when working with them on a raised vehicle, and never using safety glasses, for instance.

I'm not saying it happened in this case, but I can quite easily see a 74 year old experienced pilot completely blowing off a younger mechanic or tech who tells him that his plane's airframe is growing fatigued and might not be able to take the same stresses it used to.

There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. There are very few old, bold pilots.
You see, " cutting corners and disregarding or bending procedures or safety regulations " in an airplane gets you killed. Dead. Defunct. Often taking others with you.

 

[Checkmite]

There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. There are very few old, bold pilots.
You see, " cutting corners and disregarding or bending procedures or safety regulations " in an airplane gets you killed. Dead. Defunct. Often taking others with you.

Perhaps we're looking at a QED situation here? You're only a "criminal" after the first time you get caught; all corner-cutters survive perfectly well until the moment their luck runs out. Sometimes it happens sooner, sometimes it happens later.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. There are very few old, bold pilots.
You see, " cutting corners and disregarding or bending procedures or safety regulations " in an airplane gets you killed. Dead. Defunct. Often taking others with you.

Indeed. Aircraft maintenance is not the same as auto maintenance. Blowing off the ground crew is going to result in being grounded, then and there. If the techs don't clear the bird to fly, it simply doesn't fly. Regardless of pilot desire, age, and skill.

 

[LTC8K6]

The seating position was pretty low; I don't find it too hard to believe that with his head pressed down to his chest by the G-forces and with the camera angle being just-so that he might not be visible.

If it was that, well, maybe it was his body arriving on the floor that initiated the roll.

Edit: Have just had a quick google round to see if I can find anything about the broken seat -



You don't say?

I would say the seating position is pretty high here:

http://airpigz.com/storage/2011-sep....jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1316527119206

 

[rwguinn]

Perhaps we're looking at a QED situation here? You're only a "criminal" after the first time you get caught; all corner-cutters survive perfectly well until the moment their luck runs out. Sometimes it happens sooner, sometimes it happens later.

The laws of physics are not subject to appeal, and judgement is immediate and final

 

[Metullus]

I disagree.

Yes, younger and inexperienced individuals at whatever they're doing can be cocky. But experience is not an inoculation against this. I would venture to say there's probably a threshold past which experience ceases to be cumulatively useful.

It has been my experience, reinforced multiple times, that it is common for "older, experienced" individuals to feel justified in cutting corners and disregarding or bending procedures or safety regulations which they feel their "experience" has taught them "aren't important". They tend to have developed their "own way" of doing things and will ignore or at the very least disrespect changes (which are based on new and better information and understanding) because they think they know better. This is by no means true of all; but it's not rare by any means.

ETA: to add something of an example; as I take auto tech classes at the local community college, there are some mature-to-middle-aged people taking the classes along side me. Many of them are cool - particularly the ones who haven't been working as mechanics for a long time. I've seen two however, who obviously "know all this stuff already", repeatedly disregard rules and procedures the instructors have set down during classroom briefings - using impact wrenches to install lugnuts, scoffing at the idea of supporting suspension components when working with them on a raised vehicle, and never using safety glasses, for instance.

I'm not saying it happened in this case, but I can quite easily see a 74 year old experienced pilot completely blowing off a younger mechanic or tech who tells him that his plane's airframe is growing fatigued and might not be able to take the same stresses it used to.

Evidently you have not watched a pilot perform his preflight. Every pilot has it drilled into his head that once he is airborne any malfunction is potentially fatal; there is no pulling over onto the shoulder to see what that noise is. You do not get to be an old pilot by forgetting this basic truth. I have known pilots that have screwed up and gotten careless - some have been lucky and others not so much - but those were without exception young guys who thought that 200 hours meant that they could fly anything with wings...

 

[AdMan]

Indeed. Aircraft maintenance is not the same as auto maintenance. Blowing off the ground crew is going to result in being grounded, then and there. If the techs don't clear the bird to fly, it simply doesn't fly. Regardless of pilot desire, age, and skill.

Agree. IMO, it's likely all the "radical modifications" (such as losing 10 feet off its wingspan) the aircraft had undergone to increase its speed had more to do with the accident than either the pilot's age or poor maintenance.

 

[BenBurch]

Agree. IMO, it's likely all the "radical modifications" (such as losing 10 feet off its wingspan) the aircraft had undergone to increase its speed had more to do with the accident than either the pilot's age or poor maintenance.

It could have been none of the above, as well.

 

[Checkmite]

Evidently you have not watched a pilot perform his preflight. Every pilot has it drilled into his head that once he is airborne any malfunction is potentially fatal; there is no pulling over onto the shoulder to see what that noise is. You do not get to be an old pilot by forgetting this basic truth. I have known pilots that have screwed up and gotten careless - some have been lucky and others not so much - but those were without exception young guys who thought that 200 hours meant that they could fly anything with wings...

There is an early-60's gentleman based out of a two-runway regional in my county who has been observed on a lot more than one occasion landing with a quarter inch of ice on his wings. He doesn't have to listen to you, because you're a young punk who doesn't know what he's talking about.

It happens.

Remember this?



Air Force veteran Lieutenant Colonel in his late 40's with 24 years of flight experience; a senior pilot and flight instructor. That wasn't an isolated mishap, either; this pilot had an established history of violating flight safety standards, maximum pitch and bank angles, minimum altitudes, and other parameters in buffs. His co-pilot that day was a wing commander who was aware of that history and refused to let any of his own pilots or navs fly with this man, and was there himself to make sure the command pilot didn't once again try to fly his 100-ton bomber like a jet fighter and get himself killed. Unfortunately, he failed.

They're out there, waiting. Yes, with pilots like that, it's only a matter of time. But that time can come sooner, or later.

 

[BenBurch]

That sort would have have had an air racing career, Checkmite. Would not have lived that long.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

There is an early-60's gentleman based out of a two-runway regional in my county who has been observed on a lot more than one occasion landing with a quarter inch of ice on his wings. He doesn't have to listen to you, because you're a young punk who doesn't know what he's talking about.

It happens.

Remember this?



Air Force veteran Lieutenant Colonel in his late 40's with 24 years of flight experience; a senior pilot and flight instructor. That wasn't an isolated mishap, either; this pilot had an established history of violating flight safety standards, maximum pitch and bank angles, minimum altitudes, and other parameters in buffs. His co-pilot that day was a wing commander who was aware of that history and refused to let any of his own pilots or navs fly with this man, and was there himself to make sure the command pilot didn't once again try to fly his 100-ton bomber like a jet fighter and get himself killed. Unfortunately, he failed.

They're out there, waiting. Yes, with pilots like that, it's only a matter of time. But that time can come sooner, or later.

You do understand "flew outside the operational capabilities of the airframe" is not the same as "ignored maintenance", right?

And, yes, I understand you're trying to present evidence that old pilots ignore younger maintainers, but that's not even what happened in your example.

 

[Checkmite]

You do understand "flew outside the operational capabilities of the airframe" is not the same as "ignored maintenance", right?

And, yes, I understand you're trying to present evidence that old pilots ignore younger maintainers, but that's not even what happened in your example.

No, that's not what I'm trying to present evidence of at all. Ignoring younger maintainers is just one manifestation of the problem I'm trying to convince you is real, which is that "few old, bold pilots" does not mean "no old, bold pilots". It is possible for a pilot with centuries of experience to merely be an extremely lucky bonehead whose number just hasn't come up yet. There are enough real life examples to demonstrate this. Every time that buff pilot pulled off an extremely dangerous stunt and came out alive was further "evidence" that he knew what he was doing and all those pilots who refused to fly with him and commanders who verbally reprimanded him were just so many jellyfish. Who knows what was going through his head when his ship finally stalled for the last time at 500 feet and nosed into the ground. Before the control panel, I mean.

It's important to note that it's not fair at this point to accuse the individual who died at this recent airshow of negligence, or disregarding mechanics, or of being physically unprepared for the stresses of a race (which flight physicals don't actually establish). But the older a person gets, the more likely they are to suffer the slow physical, psychological, and judgmental deteriorations that can lead a formerly fine and experienced old pilot to become dangerous, and it's equally unfair to just handwave these issues as too unlikely to consider based on the wishful thinking that a pilot so "old and experienced" would never have such issues by definition. I really do not understand this kind of mindset that we should just trust bad pilots to kill themselves early and take it on faith that whomever is left is five-by-five for as long as they can keep renewing their certificate.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Seriously, on a general level, since we know nothing about the actual case:

- Older pilots have more experience than young pilots.
- Young pilots react faster than old pilots.
- Both young and old pilots may overestimate their own skills, albeit for different reasons. (Old pilot: "I have done this a million times!". Young pilot: "Hey, I'm top gun!")
- Young pilots have better physical endurance than old pilots.
- Old pilots know their limits better than young pilots.

These strengths and weaknesses can play different roles, depending on the situation. In some situations old pilots do better, in others young.

Air racing is inherently risky business. Planes are modified for higher performance, and driven to their limits. If you participate in, or attend an air race, you are accepting a risk. Air races and air shows have seen a long row of mostly fatal accidents, happening for a wide variety of reasons: Technical failure, maintenance failure, recklessness, simple bad luck, etc.

If you don't what to run the risk, don't participate, and watch only on TV.

Of course, every incident should be carefully investigated, to try and prevent repetitions, and to reduce that risk.

Hans