News Vintage plane crashes into crowd at Reno air races

[MaverickSawyer]

I hate to sound happy that 11 people died, but it could have been far worse. If it had hit the grandstands, hundreds would have been caught beneath the plane, rather than just a few. The latest confirmed fatality was actually hit by the plane on impact, which is why it took so long to confirm his ID.

---------- Post added at 10:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 AM ----------

The pilot is still on-board, the canopy is not a normal P-51 canopy, the pilot is at the aft end of the glass.

No idea on the tail wheel, but a loss of the elevator tab during a race, can lead to 10+ g acceleration when the plane pitches up strongly. Such acceleration could be enough to forcefully deploy the tail wheel.

THis is a picture of the aircraft before the fatal race, showing the pilot's head in relation to the canopy. It also shows the fact that there is no space behind the pilot for him to fall...

 

[Urwumpe]

Keep in mind that there is still a lot of empty space in these older craft. They are not packed like a modern fighter. A LOT of empty space for the seat to move into.

I don't know which older craft and which modern fighters you have seen, but cockpit-wise, such aircraft had been much more cramped than modern ones. In the front of your dashboard, you already have the engine firewall, behind you, the fuselage fuel tank is placed as close as possible to the CoG. Compare this to a F-22, which is pretty comfortable inside and even still has room to put two more computers inside its air conditioned avionics bay behind the pilot.

Behind the pilot seat of the P-51, there had been at least the radio gear, it is pretty likely that the modified P-51 also had similar equipment there.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/blackwings/hdetail/detailbw.cfm?bwid=bw0052

Also, it looks like right below the radio gear was already the fuselage fuel tank:

http://www.taphilo.com/Photo/Pictures/P51/index.shtml

The trainer version had the instructor seat behind the pilot, but there had been still structural supports behind the pilot.

---------- Post added at 07:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------

THis is a picture of the aircraft before the fatal race, showing the pilot's head in relation to the canopy. It also shows the fact that there is no space behind the pilot for him to fall...

Yikes, still much further forward than I thought. But yes. Where did the pilot disappear? Drop below the floor?

On another hypothesis, that is likely build on sand:

How likely is it that the steam of the waterspray boiler caused damage to the trim tab during high angles of attack?

 

[MaverickSawyer]

On another hypothesis, that is likely build on sand:

How likely is it that the steam of the waterspray boiler caused damage to the trim tab during high angles of attack?

Highly unlikely. It is made of aluminum, and could possibly take years of exposure to that plume to corrode enough to cause it to fail. The boiloff system was installed in the last three years. I doubt that Ghost spent a lot of time at high AOA.
Another possibility:
My father (an engineer with 30+ years of experience) said that the tab was likely a spare that was built during the '40s. Consider the implications of that...

 

[Urwumpe]

My father (an engineer with 30+ years of experience) said that the tab was likely a spare that was built during the '40s. Consider the implications of that...

Well, aluminum doesn't corrode that easily, but 60-70 years is a lot of time. It could already get microfractures by just being stored in the same position with small temperature variations for that long time.

It could also have been installed on that plane for nearly that time, since elevator tabs are rarely the part that you will replace. Unless it falls on your feet or you notice it moving harder than usual, you won't pay too much attention to it.

But: In the 1940s, only very few people had been aware about corrosion that can also take place from the inside of a part without being visible outside. And didn't know about the many effects of corrosion that take place on a molecular level.

A part that looks perfectly fine from outside, could be literally broken and rotten inside. I doubt they did do ultrasonic diagnosis on every part, and even if they did, it would have been pretty useless compared to doing this on modern parts, because the original parts lacked the documentation for doing such diagnosis on them. You would be experimentally looking for problems there and find out when it really breaks.

It could also be caused by racing putting a different kind of stress on the part. Usually a warplane saw less high-g maneuvering in its military life time, than what it gets during a single race.

That is the big problem: There are too many things that could have gone wrong, and just a single one was enough.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

It could also be caused by racing putting a different kind of stress on the part. Usually a warplane saw less high-g maneuvering in its military life time, than what it gets during a single race.

Very true. The design of the airframe is for a medium speed (300-350 mph) cruise to a target, followed by short bursts of speeds similar to those encountered while racing, followed by a medium speed cruise home.

 

[Pyromaniac605]

Everyone keeps comparing this to the Ramstein disaster, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the Ramstein disaster was caused by pilot error and involved two planes, this one is caused by mechanical failure and only involves one plane.
I could be wrong there, but if not, can we stop comparing the two? There isn't any reason to.

 

[Urwumpe]

I could be wrong there, but if not, can we stop comparing the two? There isn't any reason to.

Ramstein was at a US base in Germany and involved many US citizens among victims and first aid. That is why many US people now remember Ramstein and not the more deadly and similar Lviv accident.

Also it really involved three planes, which collided mid air because of a risky manuever being done without proper training. I remember reading that the solo pilot did not practice the maneuver very often before the accident, despite it being very hard.

 

[Keatah]

Remember, guys, this is a racing plane, with a lot of oem factory stuff taken out. This plane has to be as light as possible. If they cut 3 meters off the wings who knows what else was done internally. Especially the removal of materials, structural, cosmetic, or otherwise; you can bet a lot has been done!

And the electronics bay's, or lack of, are not packed with large pieces of equipment. Modern avionics and radios are available in hand-held sizes.

So, if the pilot didn't submarine or slide backwards. Where did he go?

I say the floor on which the seat was mounted collapsed, or he simply slumped forward. It doesn't look like he slid back, at least not in this photo.

http://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/2...on-1/reno-p51-mustang-lost-elevator-trim-tab/

 

[FADEC]

can we stop comparing the two? There isn't any reason to.

Why there isn't any reason?

Technically it was different accidents. But the events were equal (an air show) and both included civilian victims. And just like for Ramstein there are again questions regarding safety for air shows. I think they are valid, although they collide with the interest of air shows (greater distance from spectators, banning certain maneuvers or even the entire event etc.).

It is not very rational to justify a continuation without any consequences just because in other areas of life people also are exposed to risks. This is a little bit like the nuclear power discussion, i.e. like saying that for example Fukushima was terrible but no reason to change anything. One could also ask: why fight crime when there are always risks in life anyway? Or: why think about risk reduction in certain areas when there are risks in other areas? It's irrational to use apples against pears comparisons . And I think it is also disrespectful towards survivors and victims to say something like "come on, something like this can happen at any time and any place".

Twenty-five-year-old Noah Joraanstad, a survivor of the crash, and a pilot himself, just hits the nail:

"This was a very, very freak accident., and I think that, particularly with Reno, it's going to be almost impossible for this to go on anymore. It is dangerous, and when that many people get their lives taken away, it is pretty hard to justify continuing an event like that."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/19/earlyshow/main20108143.shtml

 

[MaverickSawyer]

So, if the pilot didn't submarine or slide backwards. Where did he go?

I say the floor on which the seat was mounted collapsed, or he simply slumped forward. It doesn't look like he slid back, at least not in this photo.

http://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/2...on-1/reno-p51-mustang-lost-elevator-trim-tab/

If you look closely, you can see Leeward slumped over in the cockpit, out cold.

 

[Codz]

Why there isn't any reason?

Technically it was different accidents. But the events were equal (an air show) and both included civilian victims. And just like for Ramstein there are again questions regarding safety for air shows. I think they are valid, although they collide with the interest of air shows (greater distance from spectators, banning certain maneuvers or even the entire event etc.).

It is not very rational to justify a continuation without any consequences just because in other areas of life people also are exposed to risks. This is a little bit like the nuclear power discussion, i.e. like saying that for example Fukushima was terrible but no reason to change anything. One could also ask: why fight crime when there are always risks in life anyway? Or: why think about risk reduction in certain areas when there are risks in other areas? It's irrational to use apples against pears comparisons . And I think it is also disrespectful towards survivors and victims to say something like "come on, something like this can happen at any time and any place".

Twenty-five-year-old Noah Joraanstad, a survivor of the crash, and a pilot himself, just hits the nail:



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/19/earlyshow/main20108143.shtml

So its more respectful to go on in fear? No one is forcing people to go to these events. If you want to be afraid and hide than go ahead, but don't screw it up for everyone else.

 

[FADEC]

So its more respectful to go on in fear?

It's a responsibility to go on safety.

No one is forcing people to go to these events.

This is another disrespectful and also unwise argument, because it actually means that it's the spectators fault they got injured/killed because they chose to visit the event.

Whether something takes place freely or not does not remove responsibility from authorities and organizers, especially not in the aftermath of such a disaster. And there will be decisions in the aftermath for sure. This likely was the last Reno air raice of its kind. Human life should be more important than the fun factor.

 

[Codz]

It's a responsibility to go on safety.



This is another disrespectful and also unwise argument, because it actually means that it's the spectators fault they got injured/killed because they chose to visit the event.

Whether something takes place freely or not does not remove responsibility from authorities and organizers, especially not in the aftermath of such a disaster. And there will be decisions in the aftermath for sure. This likely was the last Reno air raice of its kind. Human life should be more important than the fun factor.

They did in fact choose to watch the race. It's not their fault but unfortunate events happen. Should we ban kitchen knives,cars,electricity,and air travel? All those are just as, if not more dangerous than air shows.

 

[Sky Captain]

I'm wondering why there were no fire after the crash? People who were nearby said there were gasoline sprayed all over the place and when plane crashed spilled gasoline definately came into contact with hot engine parts and also steel parts hitting sphalt at such speeds should have made plenty of sparks.

 

[Keatah]

If you look closely, you can see Leeward slumped over in the cockpit, out cold.

Is he slumped?? Or is the seat sunken into the plane enough that he couldn't access the controls?

I have no idea which it is. But you can bet the NTSB will be requesting the .RAW camera data if the photographer had it set to do so. And they will be using "spy satellite" deconvolution techniques to determine the head position of the pilot. They'll figure out distance from the canopy, and angle. By angle I mean the orientation. Looking up, sideways, down, and to the exact degree. They will also enhance the areas before and after the wing to look for air density changes - helping determine the G-loading. But that info may be on the SD cards (from the performance recorders) they no doubt already recovered.

To do effective deconvolution, you need to know the characteristics of all material in the optical path, including the weather. You need to know the focal length, the exact lens, the exact camera, the exposure. All that is available to them. Then you need to know the speed of the craft, the air pressure around it, and away from it, the humidity/temperature. It's all there! Not to mention the characteristics of the canopy. They can get that too. And some information is recorded in the EXIF file.

And when I say the exact lens and camera, I mean the one actually used to take the picture. They need to do some measurements for diffraction, chromatic abberation, distortion, wave-front analysis, scattering, and so on and so forth.

With that information, they can process the .RAW file (or less ideal, the .JPG) and get the precise orientation of the helmet. Especially since the helmet had those jagged racing/lightning stripes on it! That makes it easy if they choose to go that route.

Folks, this is all in a day's work for intelligence agencies doing image enhancement. I know, I've done it.


[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconvolution"]Deconvolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_processing"]Image processing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter"]Bayer filter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

---------- Post added at 06:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 AM ----------

I'm wondering why there were no fire after the crash? People who were nearby said there were gasoline sprayed all over the place and when plane crashed spilled gasoline definately came into contact with hot engine parts and also steel parts hitting sphalt at such speeds should have made plenty of sparks.

An explosion/fire can blow itself out too if it moves through the air fast enough and in the right way.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

They did in fact choose to watch the race. It's not their fault but unfortunate events happen. Should we ban kitchen knives,cars,electricity,and air travel? All those are just as, if not more dangerous than air shows.

You are correct in saying that the first three are more dangerous than air shows. So why did the media make such a big ruckuss?
1. Graphic images (the plane disintegrating)
2. The unspoken motto of Main Stream Media: If It Bleeds, It Leads!
See how we have all reacted to the story? Fear Mongering!
I cannot back up this statement, but it is possible that more people died from being hit by drunk drivers in the US in the 24 hours before the crash than died at Reno that day.

 

[n122vu]

Some thoughts from someone who was there, and witnessed the event. So far, to me, this seems to be the most complete and sound interpretation of the events that I have seen.

http://airpigz.com/blog/2011/9/20/the-galloping-ghost-tragedy-life-risk-and-the-future.html

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Some thoughts from someone who was there, and witnessed the event. So far, to me, this seems to be the most complete and sound interpretation of the events that I have seen.

http://airpigz.com/blog/2011/9/20/the-galloping-ghost-tragedy-life-risk-and-the-future.html

Damn. That puts my blog to shame.
Nice find.

 

[Urwumpe]

Reduces at least the possibilities of the accident sequence a lot.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Reduces at least the possibilities of the accident sequence a lot.

Agreed.