Air Shows and danger.

[cpxxx]

Technically Reno wasn't an airshow even though there was an airshow element. It's an air racing event. That is inherently more dangerous than an airshow. Racers are tuned to the limit and flown up to and beyond the limits. Airshows on the the other hand are quite carefully controlled and the aircraft are not flown to the limits. As a result most airshow accidents are rare and kill the pilot only.

I doubt very much if there were many casual attendees at Reno. Most would have been enthusiasts and knowledgeable and probably knew there was a risk. Much like motor racing. I haven't been to the Indy 500 or a Formula 1 race. But I'm sure there's signs telling everyone that motor racing is inherently dangerous. As if they didn't know.

But it is perceived risk. I'm a skydive pilot, every flying day some 30 to 40 first timers throw themselves out of my aircraft with the sense they are doing something really dangerous. But it's all carefully controlled and regulated. Then they get into their cars in a euphoric state and drive home! We all know where the greatest risk lies.

As it happens I did see an airshow crash way back in the eighties. The weird thing is that I had a bad feeling about it all day and even picked a spot in the crowd that in my opinion was the least likely place for an aircraft to come down. Added to the anxiety was the fact that my kid brother was with me. As it was the plane missed the crowd but almost hit some skydivers on the ground. It never put me off airshows though. I still realised that I was in more danger going home on my motorcycle.

There's no need to overstate the danger. Airshows are mostly more dangerous for the pilots taking part.

[mbailey]

Dont take her to Action Park in Sussex NJ, its even more dangerous there 

[Shuffler]

Exacty what you said "hundreds across the nation that are performed every year without incident" and then this happens, the news media starts reporting without the facts, whips up the sensationalism, and loses track of reality.  How about the 40,000 people a year killed in car wrecks in the U.S.?  

Did anyone see Fox News today when Megan Kelly, in her typical sensationalism, explained the difference between Mr. Leeward's Mustang and an unmodified Mustang by showing a side by side picture of a P-51A and P-51D that both appeared to be in stock configuration?  Complete and grossly inaccurate reporting on her part.  

That is the difference between NEWS and NEWS SHOWS. NEWS SHOWS are for entertainment only and only slightly parallel real life occurenc es.

[oboe]

Sometimes I wonder if those statistics about how dangerous driving is are helpful.  Basically don't they just take the number of deaths in auto accidents per year per capita, or per total number of miles driven, and then claim that is everyones's statistical chance of dying while driving?    I mean is such a general figure really is valid?   Certainly the East Coast rush-hour driver has a different chance of mortality than the rural Midwest driver who is making a mid-afternoon trip to the local market?   

[Puma44]

The point being, numerous people (a great deal more than last Friday at Reno) are killed in car wrecks every day and that's no big deal to the national media because it's not sensational enough. An aircraft wreck with fatality(s) that's a another story worth sensationalizing and misrepresenting the facts.

[IrishOne]

Sometimes I wonder if those statistics about how dangerous driving is are helpful.  Basically don't they just take the number of deaths in auto accidents per year per capita, or per total number of miles driven, and then claim that is everyones's statistical chance of dying while driving?    I mean is such a general figure really is valid?   Certainly the East Coast rush-hour driver has a different chance of mortality than the rural Midwest driver who is making a mid-afternoon trip to the local market?   

QFT

[xNOVAx]

The point being, numerous people (a great deal more than last Friday at Reno) are killed in car wrecks every day and that's no big deal to the national media because it's not sensational enough. An aircraft wreck with fatality(s) that's a another story worth sensationalizing and misrepresenting the facts.

The crash has shock factor, and the media eats that up. Nothing more to it than that.

Just as we hear about small aircraft that crash on the local news.. We only hear about it because it happens so rarely

[Gh0stFT]

well difficult time for Airshows, its one thing to do what you like, but i'm responsible for my family too, i'm not sure
if this all is worth to take the kids with me. I like Airshows, and i fly paragliders knowing the risk, but family is first,
and if they dont want, its more then ok for me.

[dedalos]

We all have our opinions.

Many of us want to be in the thick of things...... usually knowledgeable about the dangers. Always keeping an eye out for that one wrong move.

With airshows and car races... it happens really quick.

The worst part after loss of life is the fact that folks were looking for entertainment. Something that makes them happy. To go from permagrin to such an awful occurrence in a split second is almost unfathomable.

Should we mention that half the people are there hoping to witness an accident?

[gyrene81]

Should we mention that half the people are there hoping to witness an accident?

thought that was only with nascar 

[xNOVAx]

An accident at a race car event 99% of the time results in the driver getting out and waiving to the crowd.

An accident at an airshow 99% of the time results in death.. The two cannot be compared to any degree, and thinking people were at the air races hoping for an accident is just plain sick..

[dedalos]

and thinking people were at the air races hoping for an accident is just plain sick..

I agree.  And as we know, people are not like that at all 

[dedalos]

thought that was only with nascar 

nascar, nasplane whats the diff?  Can those things bank to the right?   

[xNOVAx]

I agree.  And as we know, people are not like that at all 

You ever been to the air races before?

[Widewing]

That is the difference between NEWS and NEWS SHOWS. NEWS SHOWS are for entertainment only and only slightly parallel real life occurenc es.

It was worse than that... Megan Kelly had a reporter who stated that (paraphrasing), "these are greatly modified aircraft, that are much faster than the P-51 of WWII, which could not do anything near 400 mph."

I wrote the following email to Kelly:

I just heard a reporter state that the WWII era P-51 Mustang could not get anywhere near 400 mph... This is not only incorrect, but belies the lack of any attempt to learn even a little about the subject. This reporter probably has internet access, and therefore he could simply Google "P-51 Mustang".

The facts are these...

The P-51B of 1943 vintage was capable of speeds in excess of 440 mph at 27,000 feet.

The P-51D of 1944 vintage was capable of at least 437 mph at 25,000 feet.

The P-51H of 1945 vintage was capable of approximately 487 mph at 25,000 feet.

Leeward was flying a modified P-51D.

Please, ask these folks to do some research (the hallmark of good journalism) before going on the air... If they can't get something like this right, with ample sources at their fingertips, what else are they making errors with?