"Mass casualties" at crash at Nevada airshow

[Furcifer]

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

That's pretty much it.

I just thought it's odd someone would say it's ageism to consider a ceiling on the age limit for flying, especially aerobatics. We do it with kids, why we wouldn't with the elderly seems a little contradictory IMO. The fact that the physical doesn't really reflect the physicality is something that may need to be reconsidered.

 

[MRC_Hans]

One argument for an age limit is that some old pilots tend to go on flying till either someone grounds them or they have a serious accident. It's their life, and they'll rather die flying than stay on the ground. Since it is not only themselves at risk, someone may have to make the decision for them.

Hans

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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....

Hans

Which is a reasonable explanation for the findings in the research I cited, a U shaped curve on a graph of accidents by age.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's pretty much it.

I just thought it's odd someone would say it's ageism to consider a ceiling on the age limit for flying, especially aerobatics. We do it with kids, why we wouldn't with the elderly seems a little contradictory IMO. The fact that the physical doesn't really reflect the physicality is something that may need to be reconsidered.

Your 'ageism' belief here is inconsistent with what we know about aging.

All 5 yr olds would be incompetent pilots. But all 74 yr olds are not, nor are they all walking time bombs for catastrophic health events.

If the issue is too many catastrophic health events in older pilots, then based on EVIDENCE that is the case, not based on unfounded bias, the physical exam requirement needs to be modified accordingly. You don't just deny people pilot's license because someone else is not healthy enough to be a pilot.

As for the U curve, if the new pilot is of no less risk than the older pilot, but both have more risk than the mid-age ranged pilots, you have to have a cutoff or threshold. As it is, the threshold is higher for anyone flying passengers other than an instructor. Outside this limit, pilots that have more risk are still allowed to fly because the risk is still within acceptable limits. You can't use one limit for inexperienced pilots and a higher threshold for older pilots.


The bottom line: show us the evidence that supports your assertion that after a certain age, the risk of any pilot crosses the threshold of unacceptable. What age is that and what are the statistics? And, is it really the age variable or is age merely an indicator of a different variable, like a bad cardiovascular system? If a bad cardiovascular system can be weeded out with the physical, then the physical exam requirement can be changed.

 

[FattyCatty]

Which is a reasonable explanation for the findings in the research I cited, a U shaped curve on a graph of accidents by age.

Here's a repeat of that link, so nobody else has to go looking for it.

 

[Furcifer]

Your 'ageism' belief here is inconsistent with what we know about aging.

All 5 yr olds would be incompetent pilots. But all 74 yr olds are not, nor are they all walking time bombs for catastrophic health events.

If the issue is too many catastrophic health events in older pilots, then based on EVIDENCE that is the case, not based on unfounded bias, the physical exam requirement needs to be modified accordingly. You don't just deny people pilot's license because someone else is not healthy enough to be a pilot.

As for the U curve, if the new pilot is of no less risk than the older pilot, but both have more risk than the mid-age ranged pilots, you have to have a cutoff or threshold. As it is, the threshold is higher for anyone flying passengers other than an instructor. Outside this limit, pilots that have more risk are still allowed to fly because the risk is still within acceptable limits. You can't use one limit for inexperienced pilots and a higher threshold for older pilots.


The bottom line: show us the evidence that supports your assertion that after a certain age, the risk of any pilot crosses the threshold of unacceptable. What age is that and what are the statistics? And, is it really the age variable or is age merely an indicator of a different variable, like a bad cardiovascular system? If a bad cardiovascular system can be weeded out with the physical, then the physical exam requirement can be changed.

lol, "Every 5 year is incapable of flying, because I said so, but we'll evaluate the elderly on a case by case basis"

You don't seem to be homing in on the point after 2 or 3 pages, I'm not sure if your ever going to get it, but here it is one more time.

There's an arbitrary lower limit set on flying 16 or 17. It has nothing to do with whether or not the person is capable of flying physically, it just is what it is. That's not considered ageism. But if we talk about setting an upper limit it's ageism. That doesn't seem right. And that goes against everything we know about aging, because for every 74 year old that passes the physical there's probably hundreds of 15 year olds that could.

 

[I Ratant]

And every one of these superior physical types would be rendered unconscious in the event being discussed.
10 g's with -no-, that is -no g-suit- cannot be tolerated by anyone.

 

[Furcifer]

And every one of these superior physical types would be rendered unconscious in the event being discussed.
10 g's with -no-, that is -no g-suit- cannot be tolerated by anyone.

This is only tangentially related to the airshow event. I suppose if you were trying to relate it to this event the question would be would a younger pilot have had the reflexes of the physical ability to have avoided the accident?

Would a younger pilot have heard or felt some vibration in the plane prior to the accident that a 74 year old pilot didn't or couldn't? With a little more strength would a younger pilot have managed to get out of harms way before crashing?

It's all speculation, but it's equally valid as saying "Oh there's nothing he could have done, nobody could have avoided that accident". How do you know nobody could have avoided the accident if you don't know what happened prior to the accident? For all you know the the plane was flying sloppy from take off and the old guy just didn't have the fine motor skills or acuity to pick up on it.

It's worth mentioning that it's equally likely and older pilot would have noticed something, if there was something to notice, that a younger pilot or less experienced pilot wouldn't have. There's probably numerous accidents or incidents that have been avoided over the years because some old pilot knew exactly what he was doing and what to look for.

But 74 is well on the other side of the bell curve here. I don't think this 74 year old was a better and more experienced pilot now than he was when he was 50. There's a point where the return on experience begins to depreciate. From what I gather, based on the physical, is that they feel it's around 40 years old. That's the point where the physicality becomes an issue, for whatever reasons. So I think it's safe to assume this pilot was well past his prime. That's not "ageism", that's just a fact of life. Flying is a physical task and age is an important factor.

Now if someone said "74 is too old to be teaching people to fly" that would be an entirely different story. Teaching isn't a physical task and experience counts for a whole lot more.

 

[I Ratant]

In the event mentioned where one of our planes lost the entire vertical on the left side, the pilot was aware of the extreme vibration that caused the vibration, but not the reason.*
The chase plane pilot told him what had evaporated.
On the video, the vertical gets blurry, and then vanishes as chaff, in about a 1/3rd of a second.
The right side vertical got beaten up, but stayed on the plane, which was landed safely.
The vibration wasn't something as shown in "The High and the Mighty", where the vibration came and went... for dramatic effect.
Surface loss to vibration is usually a one-time affair... Lots of vibration, and then nothing, as the offending part departs.
Depends on what is falling off, the results will vary.
The L-1011 was losing main landing gear auxiliary doors in flight. We instrumented one; strain gauges and accelerometers, put a camera in the wheel-well to look at the location, and went flying.
On the way to the test points on the flight card, I observed lots of activity in the instrumentation readouts in the data center, and requested the Flight Test Engineer run a few feet of film.
He refused!
Not on the test points!
The activity ceased before we got to the test points, which were flown, the camera run... and we got very good images of the instrumentation wiring streaming in the airflow, the door having fallen off before we got there.
The data up to the departure point of the door however was on tape, and useable for the fix.
On the P-51, if the parts in the trimming system have reached the end of their useful life due to higher than designed stress, I wouldn't be surprised that they fall off quickly.
What needs to be worked on is the severity of the plane's response to the loss of one elevator tab.
.
* the reason was insufficient stiffness in the bulkhead that supported the vertical.

 

[BenBurch]

...
What needs to be worked on is the severity of the plane's response to the loss of one elevator tab.
...

I wonder if you could? That is a large tab, and has to be. So the only safe thing to do with the other tab when that happens is to let it float. But the result is a huge pitch excursion. In level flight at altitude that might be dealt with, but at pylon racing speeds wing tips nearly vertical?

And if you don't let it float, you get torque and that is something you'll not be able to deal with easily.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

lol, "Every 5 year is incapable of flying, because I said so, but we'll evaluate the elderly on a case by case basis"

Your arguments are rather pitiful. Care to name any of the 5 yr old pilots?

16 yr old is youngest pilot.

OTOH, there are many pilots besides this one who are competently flying at ages well over 65.


Where is your evidence that at some age, enough pilots pose a risk so that age should be the license cutoff? Or is your evidence, because you said so?

 

[Furcifer]

Your arguments are rather pitiful. Care to name any of the 5 yr old pilots?

It's definitely your comprehension that's pitiful. You question just proves that.

OTOH, there are many pilots besides this one who are competently flying at ages well over 65.

This is irrelevant.

Where is your evidence that at some age, enough pilots pose a risk so that age should be the license cutoff? Or is your evidence, because you said so?

Also irrelevant. (Trying to get you back on track... where's your proof a 15 year old doesn't?)

I really don't think you're following this discussion at all. It's like you're not reading anything and off on your own tangent. You just don't get it. Let's leave it at that because I really can't make this any clearer for you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I see, no evidence. I'm not surprised. I don't recall you have posted any evidence of your assertions yet.

 

[slingblade]

Fast reflexes don't necessarily outperform experience. Swift reflexes won't help if you're inexperienced and unsure what to do in an emergency. Especially in certain emergencies.

Experience doesn't necessarily outperform fast reflexes. All the experience in the world won't help you if you react too slowly. Especially in an emergency.

Regardless of either one, other factors must be taken into consideration, so a blanket statement regarding either has little merit.

I doubt that in this case, the age of the pilot was a significant factor in the crash. But as I don't suppose anyone will ever be able to definitively say, either way, there seems little point in letting this go on for more pages.

Both of the pups need to let go of the chew-toy now. This tug-of-war isn't progressing, and likely won't.

 

[Furcifer]

I see, no evidence. I'm not surprised. I don't recall you have posted any evidence of your assertions yet.

For crying out loud, evidence of what? The flying age here in Canada is 17. Reflexes, vision, acuity all begin to deteriorate around 50

Seriously, you just aren't making any sense. Read what's been posted and try again. This "evidence?" nonsense is just a poor excuse for hiding the fact that you don't or aren't willing to comprehend anything and are just arguing for arguments sake.

 

[Furcifer]

Fast reflexes don't necessarily outperform experience. Swift reflexes won't help if you're inexperienced and unsure what to do in an emergency. Especially in certain emergencies.

Experience doesn't necessarily outperform fast reflexes. All the experience in the world won't help you if you react too slowly. Especially in an emergency.

Regardless of either one, other factors must be taken into consideration, so a blanket statement regarding either has little merit.

I doubt that in this case, the age of the pilot was a significant factor in the crash. But as I don't suppose anyone will ever be able to definitively say, either way, there seems little point in letting this go on for more pages.

Both of the pups need to let go of the chew-toy now. This tug-of-war isn't progressing, and likely won't.

This is all true but it somewhat misses the point. The population is aging and there will inherently be more and more cases of the elderly pushing the limits of their ability. Considering a mandatory age limit shouldn't be dismissed as "ageism", especially for something like aerobatics, which we know is physically demanding.

I mentioned early on it was somewhat unfair to discuss this in this thread because as it stands there's nothing to suggest the pilot's age played any part in the accident. A topic for another thread perhaps, but if you've read any of the comments on the webpages following the accident it's pretty much a common theme in all of them.

I've seen more than a few comments from people claiming to be pilots, saying that the physical isn't really designed to determine if a 74 year old is physically fit enough to fly aerobatics. It's pretty much up to the person to know if they are capable of flying safely. To me at least that seems like an accident waiting to happen. For every retiree who knows their limits there's one that doesn't. There's a lot of pride when it comes to the elderly and their licenses, for understandable reasons.

 

[slingblade]

This is all true but it somewhat misses the point.

Your point is not my problem, and saying this allows you to go on growling over that chew-toy.

Not playing. Have a nice day.

 

[Travis]

What is the airplane equivalent of stepping on the accelerator instead of the break while in drive and not in reverse thus sending the car into the store in front of them?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Not playing. Have a nice day.

Me neither, I'm getting bored.

 

[slingblade]

Me neither, I'm getting bored.

Girl, you've sure got more stamina than I, that's for sure. Nicely done, by the way.