"Mass casualties" at crash at Nevada airshow

[Furcifer]

Your point is not my problem,

My apologies then, I assumed you were trying to contribute and not just repeat what's already been well established.

 

[Furcifer]

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

Indeed, the mental gymnastics of missing the point over something this obvious isn't easy.

 

[Furcifer]

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?

I'm pretty sure "brain fart" applies equally to both.

 

[slingblade]

My apologies then, I assumed you were trying to contribute and not just repeat what's already been well established.

I was contributing. I just wasn't contributing to the chewing of the toy.

I've observed a lot of argumentative styles during my years here, and there are some styles that just aren't worth engaging.

 

[FattyCatty]

<snip>I've observed a lot of argumentative styles during my years here, and there are some styles that just aren't worth engaging.

Ignore is a wonderful option that instantly reduces aggravation levels.

Did I miss a reference to the NTSB Press Briefing on September 18? They said they had new information found that day:

<snip>
For new information:

• First of all there had been reports about a mayday from the pilot. Thus far our investigators have found no information of a mayday call from the pilot.
• Next. The investigators have found that the accident aircraft was equipped with a video camera - facing outward. They have also found camera fragments at the wreckage site. And among the wreckage site [sic] they have found multiple memory cards that could have come from the camera. Clearly, we can't tell at this point whether or not any of those memory cards are from the accident aircraft and so those memory cards, all that have been found, will be sent to the NTSB Research and Engineering Laboratory in Washington, DC, for analysis. Obviously, the first thing is to determine whether any of them actually came from the accident aircraft and then whether any of the images or data available will be relevant to the accident investigation. Related to that, if that analysis allows our investigators to actually determine any personal information - so if there's a memory card that comes from someone not rel - some information that's not related to the accident aircraft, and there's personal information available, those memory cards will actually get returned to those individuals. Just so you know what we do with that information. But I'm gonna repeat, there was a camera identified, a video camera; fragments were found; memory cards have been identified; all of those will be going to the Research and Engineering Laboratory in DC to determine if they actually have any video images from the accident aircraft.
• Next, our investigators have also found that this particular aircraft had a recording system that recorded multiple variables on both memory card and through telemetry transferred the data to the racing team crew. A box with the memory card has been found - that could have come from the accident aircraft. That will have to be determined. I'll talk about that in just a moment. We do have the telemetry data that has already been examined and will be sent for further analysis to Washington, DC. I'll talk about that as well. It has multiple variables, including information from the engine, such as oil pressure and oil temperature, but also includes GPS information, altitude, velocity, latitude, longitude, and other variables. These could be critical for us to perform analysis that would allow us to examine certain structural or medical issues based on this information.

<snip>

 

[Furcifer]

I was contributing. I just wasn't contributing to the chewing of the toy.

By repeating what was already established and glossing over the point, that was your contribution? OK. Forgive me, but it really looks like your egging someone on.

I've observed a lot of argumentative styles during my years here, and there are some styles that just aren't worth engaging.

I have as well. One of the most abused is he deliberate act of "missing the point" and then continuing to feign ignorance. Another would be trying to sound profound when asking the most inane questions "But how do we really know 2+2 is 4, numbers are just a theory". It's along the lines of another commonly employed fallacy, which is demanding "evidence?" for mundane things and then harping on it while avoiding the real issue "Where's your "evidence" water is wet hmmm?"

They're all worth engaging because intelligent readers will spot the fallacy immediately and know who is being honest and who isn't. 2 or 3 pages of derail by SG and she has yet to acknowledge she was wrong about questioning which was ultimately more important; physical ability or experience. Nor has she even begun to address the question of why it's ageism to consider an upper age limit for flying but not when it's a lower limit like the current 16 or 17.

The rest as I say is just a derail to avoid answering these questions. We all get it, experience can count for more than physical ability at times, and physical ability can count for more than experience at times. Nobody has said otherwise and nobody would. It's just so bloody obvious it doesn't need pointing out. Or "evidence?".

 

[SezMe]

.
No pilot visible in any images after the pullup...

Why is the tail wheel extended just before the accident?

 

[rwguinn]

Furcifer seems to think flying an airplane is akin to riding a bicycle...

 

[I Ratant]

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.

.
You have to prove that this event could have been benign with a younger pilot.
If that pilot blacked out, and did nothing at all with the control system while unconscious...
Apparently one (Hannah) was fortunate enough to not have the plane roll while he was incapacitated.
Leeward's collapse may have caused the control column to shift sideways, causing the roll.
In any event, both pilots, one youngish, one a geezer, were rendered unconscious by the initial event.

 

[I Ratant]

Why is the tail wheel extended just before the accident?

.
Dunno, except that lowering the landing gear is done by moving the control lever -down- on the instrument panel.
Under the conditions of the event, with the g-loading, an insecurely positioned lever could have been moved by the g's, or something on the pilot's body moved the lever.
Or the uplatch at the tail wheel failed....
????
The D-doors on the mains weren't opening.. these move first on the mains during an extension sequence.

 

[Furcifer]

.
You have to prove that this event could have been benign with a younger pilot.

In order to say it's not ageism to consider an upper limit on the age people are allowed to fly I have to prove this accident could have been avoided with a younger pilot

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Furcifer]

Furcifer seems to think flying an airplane is akin to riding a bicycle...

I'm not sure about where you live, but there's no license needed to ride a bicycle here. It's not even close to being the same thing.

I will say this though, if a 74 year old man can do it, there are plenty of 12 or 13 year old kids that could learn to do it. I don't hold any romantic notions of flying and operating a plane. If you have the physical and mental ability to operate a plane age is irrelevant. That should go both ways, but obviously it doesn't. Until it does I don't see how saying an upper limit is "ageism" isn't inherently contradictory.

 

[I Ratant]

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.

.
Looking through the old images... I have this of Howie Keefe in "Miss America" rounding a pylon at Mohave.. not all that agressively, looking at the bank angle.
Both elevator tabs are up, and the elevator itself is just slightly down, although he is pulling maybe 2 g's... the level flight position of the elevator would be more down than seen here.
If the elevator tab that stayed on doesn't fair/streamline when the other falls off, it would lessen the pitch effect and the load on the pilot. The plane would probably pitch up symmetrically, if there's no roll or rudder input, due to whatever happens to the pilot.
And Steve Hinton in the "Red Baron" making the same turn, a bit more g...

 

[FattyCatty]

The NTSB has released a preliminary report on the accident.

<snip>
The airplane was participating in the Reno National Championship Air Races in the last event of the day. The airplane had completed several laps and was in a steep left turn towards the home pylon when, according to photographic evidence, the airplane suddenly banked momentarily to the left before banking to the right, turning away from the race course, and pitching to a steep nose-high attitude. Witnesses reported and photographic evidence indicates that a piece of the airframe separated during these maneuvers. After roll and pitch variations, the airplane descended in an extremely nose-low attitude and collided with the ground in the box seat area near the center of the grandstand seating area.
<snip>

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In order to say it's not ageism to consider an upper limit on the age people are allowed to fly I have to prove this accident could have been avoided with a younger pilot

That doesn't make any sense.

I asked you to simply provide evidence of the age when accidents/risk exceeds acceptable tolerance. You have not provided any evidence, regardless of this particular event.

 

[Checkmite]

Well, a couple of things here. First:

The airplane had completed several laps and was in a steep left turn towards the home pylon when, according to photographic evidence, the airplane suddenly banked momentarily to the left before banking to the right, turning away from the race course, and pitching to a steep nose-high attitude. Witnesses reported and photographic evidence indicates that a piece of the airframe separated during these maneuvers.

It's a little ambiguous, but this description suggests to me that the elevator trim tab separating from the elevator was caused by the sudden abnormal control movements, not the cause of them.

If the seat broke and fell back during the turn, it might explain those movements, the sudden steep climb (as he held onto the stick while he fell backwards), the absence of his head in photos of the cockpit, and perhaps even the extension of the landing gear (perhaps he pulled the lever while trying to grab something by which to pull himself upright).

I don't see his head being absent due to his being slumped forward, because generally speaking there's not a whole lot of forward clearance between the pilot and the control panel of most small planes; and it seems to me that as a plane with its nose pointed at the ground will be accelerating, g-forces would have been pushing back on his body at the moment the photo was taken.

 

[LTC8K6]

I think he is, without doubt, unconscious.

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hpho...735565_100001041958842_795493_108115248_n.jpg

http://vimeo.com/29519344

 

[rwguinn]

Well, a couple of things here. First:



It's a little ambiguous, but this description suggests to me that the elevator trim tab separating from the elevator was caused by the sudden abnormal control movements, not the cause of them.

If the seat broke and fell back during the turn, it might explain those movements, the sudden steep climb (as he held onto the stick while he fell backwards), the absence of his head in photos of the cockpit, and perhaps even the extension of the landing gear (perhaps he pulled the lever while trying to grab something by which to pull himself upright).

I don't see his head being absent due to his being slumped forward, because generally speaking there's not a whole lot of forward clearance between the pilot and the control panel of most small planes; and it seems to me that as a plane with its nose pointed at the ground will be accelerating, g-forces would have been pushing back on his body at the moment the photo was taken.

Such speculation is still very premature, but a couple of points.
In a steep turn, elevator is used to tighten the turn. This puts more load on the elevator, and the trim tab. An indication such as a buzz, change in required stick pressure, etc, would tell the pilot of possible problems. The pilot, if experienced, would roll out of the turn, to relieve the problem.
Failure of the tab, functionally, could--and probably would--precede the parting of the tab from the aircraft. Functional failure would also lead to the pitch-up.
That is why the NTSB takes so long to issue their reports. There are a hell of a lot of scenarios possible.
ETA: a seat failure, in that cockpit, would just as likely cause a "Down" command to the stick--there is not much room behind the seat, and it is slightly reclined, so it would possibly move forward, pushing on the stick, which is mounted in the cockpit floor.

 

[LTC8K6]

If he were conscious, he'd be making inputs. There appear to be no inputs made after the pull up. The controls appear to be remain neutral.

A broken seat seems only a remote possibility. He'd have been able to call mayday if his seat broke, for example. He never did.

He does nothing after the pull up as far as I can tell. No control inputs. No comms.

He's out, with his head resting on the panel, imo.

 

[Furcifer]

I asked you to simply provide evidence of the age when accidents/risk exceeds acceptable tolerance. You have not provided any evidence, regardless of this particular event.

Seriously? My whole point is that there's no evidence that a 16 year old is an "acceptable risk" but a 15 year old isn't, and yet it's perfectly fine, and not considered ageism to exclude them from operating a plane. For some stupid reason though, if we talk about setting an upper limit on geezers, oh noes ageism!

Since you don't seem to be following this I'll lay it out for you in plain English; if you can cite a reason a 16 year old is acceptable and a 15 year old isn't then it's worth discussing how it can't be or shouldn't be applied to the elderly. Otherwise, you really don't have anything to say or contribute and you're just arguing for arguments sake. To be honest I think we reached that point pages ago.