Reno Air Race Crash

Stewartb said:
I took my kid 25 years ago. We watched a non-accident midair and an engine out emergency of a Mustang. She met lots of folks in the pits and was particularly fond of one pilot that was especially kind to her. He died the following year in a race accident. My daughter never wanted to learn to fly after that. I can’t imagine the pilot dads in the crowd today with their kids, trying to get them excited about flying. Epic fail. What a waste.
Click to expand...

I was a dad in the crowd yesterday with my 13 year old who has her eyes set pretty firmly on an aviation career. We say in the stands while it was quiet and talked about what she saw and how she felt. It was tough for her to watch for sure, but she ultimately understands that as someone planning a life of flying that could include military, competition, exhibition etc, that incidents will happen and this probably wouldn't be the last time for a similar experience. Her plans aren't changing, not everyone reacts the same.
 
G-force induced loss of consciousness (abbreviated as G-LOC, pronounced "JEE-lock")
 
N8DAV8R said:
I was a dad in the crowd yesterday with my 13 year old who has her eyes set pretty firmly on an aviation career. We say in the stands while it was quiet and talked about what she saw and how she felt. It was tough for her to watch for sure, but she ultimately understands that as someone planning a life of flying that could include military, competition, exhibition etc, that incidents will happen and this probably wouldn't be the last time for a similar experience. Her plans aren't changing, not everyone reacts the same.
Click to expand...
You'll get to reflect on this comment in 10 or 15 years to see how it turns out. My daughter became a lawyer. That wasn't on her radar at 13!
 
Stewartb said:
You'll get to reflect on this comment in 10 or 15 years to see how it turns out. My daughter became a lawyer. That wasn't on her radar at 13!
Click to expand...

Of course, a kid that age could lose interest next month and want nothing to do with dad or airplanes. But it wouldn't be the result of what happened yesterday, and per your original post it's not an epic fail for every dad trying get a kid interested.
 
Second the point in post #45. Furthermore, most females who get a pilot license of any kind end up not pursuing paid pilot positions for a career (and most who do...are childless, tar and featha' me oh angry mob) for reasons that have zero to do with some perceived occupational risk of bodily injury.

The plurality discontinue their pursuit once motherhood becomes a priority item in their lives. This is based on my peer experience with female military and airline pilots, and wives of male military pilots who pursued civilian flight training, or were themselves dual military and airline pilot couples. Don't shoot the messenger, or shoot me, I don't care.

Point being, I'm not shielding my kid from an event that might result in him becoming aware that life isn't guaranteed default setting to safety, because I think it might "ruin" his life outlook. Life is grey; there's really nothing to lament in that, at the macro level I mean. To each their own of course.
 
N8DAV8R said:
Of course, a kid that age could lose interest next month and want nothing to do with dad or airplanes. But it wouldn't be the result of what happened yesterday, and per your original post it's not an epic fail for every dad trying get a kid interested.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to say it was a dad fail. It's a Reno fail. It's an aviation fail. Too many people have died for nothing at Reno's races.
 
Stewartb said:
I didn't mean to say it was a dad fail. It's a Reno fail. It's an aviation fail. Too many people have died for nothing at Reno's races.
Click to expand...

Every single one of them knew and understood that there is a relatively high risk to this sort of low-level, fast flying. Nobody is forced to participate.
 
True. That doesn’t change how I feel. It isn’t good for aviation. You guys **** and moan about crashes affecting public perception of aviation and your insurance rates. This is a glaring example of an accident that didn’t have to happen.
 
Stewartb said:
True. That doesn’t change how I feel. It isn’t good for aviation. You guys **** and moan about crashes affecting public perception of aviation and your insurance rates. This is a glaring example of an accident that didn’t have to happen.
Click to expand...
so ban all non-commercial GA too. it's largely pointless
 
N8DAV8R said:
I was a dad in the crowd yesterday with my 13 year old who has her eyes set pretty firmly on an aviation career. We say in the stands while it was quiet and talked about what she saw and how she felt. It was tough for her to watch for sure, but she ultimately understands that as someone planning a life of flying that could include military, competition, exhibition etc, that incidents will happen and this probably wouldn't be the last time for a similar experience. Her plans aren't changing, not everyone reacts the same.
Click to expand...

I remember being a teenager (a few years older than your daughter) at Oshkosh and watching as the two P51s collided on landing back in 2007. I was as close to the runway as you could get and was down past the ultralight area (so somewhat close to where it happened). It was my first time seeing something like that in person and it definitely upset me for a while. I still think back on it occasionally.

It sounds like you approached your experience with your daughter similar to how my parents approached it.
 
Stewartb said:
True. That doesn’t change how I feel. It isn’t good for aviation. You guys **** and moan about crashes affecting public perception of aviation and your insurance rates. This is a glaring example of an accident that didn’t have to happen.
Click to expand...

The same could be said for any form of racing - or really, any professional 'sport' where the 'human' is actually the participant. Auto, boat, motorcycle, jet ski, flying squirrel suit, etc. They all have an inherent risk factor significantly higher than their 'regular' counterpart. Are the Reno Air Races somehow different?
 
Get rid of air shows too while we’re at it. Too many accidents over the years and the military participation is an unnecessary burden on the taxpayers.
 
Pinecone said:
And how about all those who die from running out of fuel?

Life is a risk. Aviation is a greater risk.
Click to expand...
That’s the result of negligence and can easily be avoided. Again, the straw man arguments aren’t very good.

My 2c.
 
How long does it take to wake up from G-LOC? I suppose it depends on the g's currently being pulled? So a range from never to what....a few seconds? minutes?
 
RyanB said:
That’s the result of negligence and can easily be avoided. Again, the straw man arguments aren’t very good.

My 2c.
Click to expand...

Not everyone gets a pilot's licence just to buzz around within 50 miles of home base and never do anything interesting.

Interesting flying has risks. Nobody at Reno is putting anyone in danger who doesn't know the risks, any more than any other motorsport. We complain about "the public" trying to limit GA but I think there's more impact here from timid pilots trying to shut down other aviators.
 
Jim K said:
How long does it take to wake up from G-LOC? I suppose it depends on the g's currently being pulled? So a range from never to what....a few seconds? minutes?
Click to expand...

About 25 seconds on this day for a fully trained up and current pointy-nosed person:

 
Stewartb said:
I didn't mean to say it was a dad fail. It's a Reno fail. It's an aviation fail. Too many people have died for nothing at Reno's races.
Click to expand...

I could die tomorrow racing motorcycles, which will never pay me a dime (in fact, they cost me money)…if the benefits I see outweigh the risks in my life, and that of my family, who are you to pass judgement? You apply your morals and risk vs reward to you and your family, I’ll do so to mine and we can live in harmony. Start passing judgement as to whether my (or anyone else’s) hobby is “worth it” by your standards, and you’re talking out your you know what.

Reno is a motorsports event first and an aviation event second. Everyone attending (participant or spectator) should know death, serious injury, and/or a traumatizing visual is a possibility. If that’s not ok with you, don’t go. But don’t then project your decision on others as if they are somehow making the wrong choice because it violates your standards.
 
DesertNomad said:
Every single one of them knew and understood that there is a relatively high risk to this sort of low-level, fast flying.
Click to expand...

Katamarino said:
Nobody at Reno is putting anyone in danger who doesn't know the risks, any more than any other motorsport.
Click to expand...
Do you think everyone in the infield when Galloping Ghost lawn-darted was aware that at least one airplane pointing its velocity vector at them relied on substandard maintenance practices and inadequate envelope expansion? Or are you suggesting that should be a given, something that all attendees should expect?

I'm not opposed to air racing, but I am opposed to irresponsible flying. They are not, unfortunately, mutually exclusive.

Nauga,
and untrimmed moments
 
nauga said:
Do you think everyone in the infield when Galloping Ghost lawn-darted was aware that at least one airplane pointing its velocity vector at them relied on substandard maintenance practices and inadequate envelope expansion? Or are you suggesting that should be a given, something that all attendees should expect?
Click to expand...

Yes, I absolutely am saying that anyone attending that event should have known that the risk of a plane crash in the crowd, however small, existed. Just like when we go on the road we accept that a small risk exists from negligent drivers. Life has risks and if you go to an event like Reno, it's an unfortunate but unavailable part of it.
 
G-LOC recovery timing depends on physiological condition (O2 sat at point of loss), resting G-tolerance, underlying/undisclosed pathologies, recovery G of the aircraft during portions without input (N/A for auto GCAS). It's a serious occurrence, once that's very often fatal, as is probable in the accident in question.

In short, it depends, few seconds to less than one minute. Problem is that any of it can be an eternity and usually too long to save your life in a dive, depending on conditions. I have coworkers who have lost close friends to G-LOC in the Viper; auto-GCAS has objectively saved lives.

It's currently impractical and prohibitive to implement aGCAS recreationally, let alone in our ossified regulatory environment. So the best approach to G is a conservative and defensive approach to it. [If nobody is shooting at you] Lead the G-demand with your AGSM, don't get lazy on it just because you've gotten away with it so many times before. Lastly, ease the pull at the onset of visual acuity loss. For the love of what's holy, don't keep pulling by relying on hearing loss as the go/no-go, and yes we've all done stupid s--- in the 'fuge. But in the aircraft don't push it that close, and live to race/fly/compete/gentleman acro another day.

Respect your physio cues. It's supposed to be fun after all. Everybody stay safe up there.
 
hindsight2020 said:
G-LOC recovery timing depends on physiological condition (O2 sat at point of loss), resting G-tolerance, underlying/undisclosed pathologies, recovery G of the aircraft during portions without input (N/A for auto GCAS). It's a serious occurrence, once that's very often fatal, as is probable in the accident in question.

In short, it depends, few seconds to less than one minute. Problem is that any of it can be an eternity and usually too long to save your life in a dive, depending on conditions. I have coworkers who have lost close friends to G-LOC in the Viper; auto-GCAS has objectively saved lives.

It's currently impractical and prohibitive to implement aGCAS recreationally, let alone in our ossified regulatory environment. So the best approach to G is a conservative and defensive approach to it. [If nobody is shooting at you] Lead the G-demand with your AGSM, don't get lazy on it just because you've gotten away with it so many times before. Lastly, ease the pull at the onset of visual acuity loss. For the love of what's holy, don't keep pulling by relying on hearing loss as the go/no-go, and yes we've all done stupid s--- in the 'fuge. But in the aircraft don't push it that close, and live to race/fly/compete/gentleman acro another day.

Respect your physio cues. It's supposed to be fun after all. Everybody stay safe up there.
Click to expand...

Just spitballing here, but in your opinion/experience, could the heavy wildfire smoke during race week have affected the pilot’s O2 saturation enough to affect that component of GLOC risk?
 
nauga said:
Do you think everyone in the infield when Galloping Ghost lawn-darted was aware that at least one airplane pointing its velocity vector at them relied on substandard maintenance practices and inadequate envelope expansion? Or are you suggesting that should be a given, something that all attendees should expect?

I'm not opposed to air racing, but I am opposed to irresponsible flying. They are not, unfortunately, mutually exclusive.

Nauga,
and untrimmed moments[/

I think that one should fully expect that an aircraft (or car, bike, etc) can enter the spectator area and verify that they are ok with that risk. I also believe that a reasonable person SHOULD (“”) be able to presume that at an event with such a high financial cost for participation and high human price for failure, MX and modification issues like the Ghost should not have happened. As someone who was about 50-60 feet from wearing the Ghost, I was appalled when I read the final report and watched the briefing. That pile of crap shouldn’t have been anywhere near the races.

Incidentally, I too went through a period after the Ghost of zero interest in aviation. After awhile, the fact that I liked aviation again was my motivation to finally pursue my PPL.
Click to expand...
 
Katamarino said:
Not everyone gets a pilot's licence just to buzz around within 50 miles of home base and never do anything interesting.

Interesting flying has risks. Nobody at Reno is putting anyone in danger who doesn't know the risks, any more than any other motorsport. We complain about "the public" trying to limit GA but I think there's more impact here from timid pilots trying to shut down other aviators.
Click to expand...

I don’t want to ban anything or anyone - hell no - let people fly anyway they want …but hey, I do find flying within 50 or 100 or whatever miles around my airport a lot more interesting than pointlessly zooming in a circle around an imaginary oval in a single purpose Frankenstein-like plane …yeah, I find my style of flying much very relaxing.
 
Omalley1537 said:
Just spitballing here, but in your opinion/experience, could the heavy wildfire smoke during race week have affected the pilot’s O2 saturation enough to affect that component of GLOC risk?
Click to expand...

I really can't speak to the cardiovascular health history of the 61 yo man in question. My untrained-medical conjecture? No, air quality in this instance would have not been a contribution of consequence to any reduced G-tolerance during the time of flight. In my experience, short-term hydration level going into a sortie is a much more significant inflection point for most pilots, when it comes to ability to retain consciousness while under the same "control" G-onset and G-target condition.

If I was going to generalize, this appears to be an execution error primarily. Overshot high yo-yo, apparently to not lose the race (via time penalty) due cutting inside the pylon (according to that YT hack blancolirio ....I keed I keed). The guy apparently was on a hot streak (fastest qualifying of the category going into the heat) and had things to prove being newish to the circuit. The recommittal was certainly at a higher G than would have otherwise been needed sans the wide overshot repo. The outcome is of course, for us to witness and discuss.

This isn't an instant decision however. He had a choice to ease while conscious. He was fangs out right at the edge, and slipped. Occupational hazard of type A living, which racing is certainly part and parcel to.

Blancolirio says these contraptions are flown sans life support pneumatics. So add that to the plate. Another conjecture, having that additional 1.5G artificial pad with the G-suit might have saved his life in this instance, risk compensation notwithstanding. I'm willing to say his O2 sat was probably nominal for him at the time of the accident.
 
Omalley1537 said:
Just spitballing here, but in your opinion/experience, could the heavy wildfire smoke during race week have affected the pilot’s O2 saturation enough to affect that component of GLOC risk?
Click to expand...

Are you asking a spitballing local who has had to deal with too much smoke the last two years, and bought another oximeter in addition to the airplane one, for daily use, out of curiosity? Well, then, yes. Anecdotally, no scientific method applied, though. Good non-smoke related points above.
 
Katamarino said:
Yes, I absolutely am saying that anyone attending that event should have known that the risk of a plane crash in the crowd, however small, existed. Just like when we go on the road we accept that a small risk exists from negligent drivers. Life has risks and if you go to an event like Reno, it's an unfortunate but unavailable part of it.
Click to expand...
The Galloping Ghost crash was a miserable failure of risk mitigation on many sides. I'm OK if you disagree, but I don't think expecting the general public to understand and accept the risk of the causal factors in this accident is realistic or proper risk mitigation. I also think it's a cop-out to say the general public should have understood those risks.

That being said, I have nothing against air racing in general. I won't be in the crowd with you, not because I'm not willing to accept the risk, but because I find it boring and largely pointless.

Nauga,
flat out
 
I remember in the 80's, reading about a team that was trying to win something along the lines of piston unlimited, or whatever it was called, by designing a new carbon-fiber aircraft with CAD and all sorts of high tech at the time fluid dynamics thing. What impressed me is that they were trying to beat the P-51, which was more or less designed on the back of a cocktail napkin in 3 months in the 1940's.
 
nauga said:
I also think it's a cop-out to say the general public should have understood those risks.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you do air racing without a lot of inherent risk. How to explain/communicate that risk is a challenge.
 
Albany Tom said:
I remember in the 80's, reading about a team that was trying to win something along the lines of piston unlimited, or whatever it was called, by designing a new carbon-fiber aircraft with CAD and all sorts of high tech at the time fluid dynamics thing. What impressed me is that they were trying to beat the P-51, which was more or less designed on the back of a cocktail napkin in 3 months in the 1940's.
Click to expand...

You might be thinking of the Pond Racer that crashed here in 1993.
 
DesertNomad said:
You might be thinking of the Pond Racer that crashed here in 1993.
Click to expand...

It could have been. When I read about it, they were doing the build. It was when I was working for a consulting company and the owner was a pilot, sometime late 80's early 90's. I was always a fan of aviation, but didn't think I'd be flying myself at the time.

Edit - Just read the wiki article about it. That's an interesting but sad story. I don't think that's the aircraft that I remembered, because I believe I would have noticed that Burt Rutan was involved.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top