there is an NTSB press conf in Reno today, 10am, regarding the investigation of the accident and recommendations for the races.

May cool heads, real data and rational risk analysis prevail.

http://www.capitolconnection.net/capcon/ntsb/ntsb.htm

No surprises the way I see it.

Heard some of it live. Here are some of the points I remember

1) Move the fuel trucks further away from flightline,
2) ask/require pilots to wear G-suits,
3) move the course (although they haven't said where or how far since they are still investigating it)
4) aircraft inspection and data supporting speed capability
5) some kind of barrier improvement between flightline and spectators

Will some of these items make the RARA spectator experience less enjoyable--probably. A lot of the enjoyment we have is getting close the planes, pits, pilots, and the action. Like a lot of things, the nani-state/no-fun police are taking away life's little pleasures. I'm all for protecting the innocent, but spectators at all racing events know there are risks to everyone.

Trooperdad wrote:Heard some of it live. Here are some of the points I remember

1) Move the fuel trucks further away from flightline,
2) ask/require pilots to wear G-suits,
3) move the course (although they haven't said where or how far since they are still investigating it)
4) aircraft inspection and data supporting speed capability
5) some kind of barrier improvement between flightline and spectators

Will some of these items make the RARA spectator experience less enjoyable--probably. A lot of the enjoyment we have is getting close the planes, pits, pilots, and the action. Like a lot of things, the nani-state/no-fun police are taking away life's little pleasures. I'm all for protecting the innocent, but spectators at all racing events know there are risks to everyone.

But do not let children in cus they do not have a choice.

Tim

I think there was a more important take away here. The unlimited show line was required by a previous FAA directive (recommendation) to be 500' from the spectators. She made that point several times. They were in compliance with the 500' directive. For any aircraft operating at speeds in excess of 250 mph the show line is required by regulation (not directive as described here) to be 1000'

As a former air show promoter and airboss I was surprised that the show line was only 500'. For our show we were never able to get, for instance, a military tactical demonstration because we simply did not have the room for a 1000' show line.

She made a quick comment that FAA would be looking at changing the directive to bring it in to compliance with FAA regulations.

Clearly in this case there would have been far less spectator injury if Galloping Ghost had impacted 500' farther out towards the course. That does not say however that all future incidents will be precluded with a 1000' show line.

EB

This was one of the NTSBs points that the FAAs guidance on distance from the show line is inconsistant in the 2 documents and that FAA needs to resolve it. The show line at present is 875' from the box seats and 750' from the pits. One of the guidances says it needs to be 1000' if the airplanes are moving more that 250 mph (or was it knots?). Moving the showline out to 1000' and putting up some kind of barrier would really provide little protection against this sort of crash, where the trajectory was uncontrolled and indeed came from over and behind the grandstand, and NTSB acknowledged that in the press conference. However, it would provide some degree of increased safety from crashes that impact the ground and scatter such as the Jet crash in '08 or '09, or the Thunder Mustang crash in '10.

I expect that the next set of recommendations from the 'blue ribbon panel' appointed by RARA will overlap most of what NTSB suggests but will provide more insight into possible course changes, etc.

Looking forward to September.

Pete

I agree Pete on the barrier issue. The only barrier that would be helpful would conceal the show.

Emory Bored wrote:As a former air show promoter and airboss I was surprised that the show line was only 500'. For our show we were never able to get, for instance, a military tactical demonstration because we simply did not have the room for a 1000' show line.

In a nutshell, current regs are:

Safety buffer for aerobatic maneuvers at an air show:
Category 1 - 1500 feet from show line. (military jets)
Category 2 - 1000 feet from aerobatic box edge. (WW II fighters & helicopters)
Category 3 - 500 feet from aerobatic box edge. (twisty turny acts)

For flat pass, regardless of aircraft category at an air show:
500 feet from crowd line.

I do not have the FSIMS in front of me at the moment, but 500 feet for race aircraft does not seem out of line with the current regs.

Which I'm sure will change.

smutny wrote:

Emory Bored wrote:As a former air show promoter and airboss I was surprised that the show line was only 500'. For our show we were never able to get, for instance, a military tactical demonstration because we simply did not have the room for a 1000' show line.

In a nutshell, current regs are:

Safety buffer for aerobatic maneuvers at an air show:
Category 1 - 1500 feet from show line. (military jets)
Category 2 - 1000 feet from aerobatic box edge. (WW II fighters & helicopters)
Category 3 - 500 feet from aerobatic box edge. (twisty turny acts)

For flat pass, regardless of aircraft category at an air show:
500 feet from crowd line.

I do not have the FSIMS in front of me at the moment, but 500 feet for race aircraft does not seem out of line with the current regs.

Which I'm sure will change.

Well, that's what we thought anyway. We used to get F-15 low passes but no tactical demonstration.

Heard my wife say****, felt a shadow above me, heard a thump and fended off flying debris. No amount of clear space to the front would have made any difference - it just was not my time. Whatever it takes to let the races continue, so be it. Have my request in for 2012 race tickets.

Spectators inside the race course, centrifugal force and momentum of racers always leads away, debris field of crashes/midairs always moving away. Not as good of an experience for spectators, who have to turn all directions to watch the race. But a measurable, quantifiable improvement in safety if it is needed to make insurers and FAA happy.

EZFlap wrote:Spectators inside the race course, centrifugal force and momentum of racers always leads away, debris field of crashes/midairs always moving away. Not as good of an experience for spectators, who have to turn all directions to watch the race. But a measurable, quantifiable improvement in safety if it is needed to make insurers and FAA happy.

Not the first time I have heard this idea, and with NO OFFENSE INTENDED to you EZFlap, I'm gonna throw in my 2 cents on this: (OK, more like a buck and a half)

First, measurable, quantifiable improvements take time and numbers of events to measure and quantify, and changes can only be measured by running the race.

Some high speed failures have led airplanes outside the course, like the structural failure of Miss Ashley II, but the momentum of THIS airplane was actually moving back toward the course, not outbound. Mostly straight down, yes, but slightly toward the infield.

Moving the crowd inside the course is not desirable from a spectator point of view.
- cannot see the whole course at one time and have to turn around all the time
- the current config has the sun at the back of the spectators, not in their face

this is not practical
- how do you get spectators, vendors, and services in and out of the race course all day? No easy way to move that many people across the runways while running a show, parking still would need to be on the outside, no money for pedestrian tunnels

this is not safer
- centrifugal force and momentum is only one of the many factors to consider

- there have been more crashes inside the course than outside. many of these were ailing airplanes (blown engines, coolant leaks, runaway prop governors, failed propeller blades, overheating, smoke in the cockpit, and a midair collision) with conscious pilots with at least some control looking for any runway, or flat piece of desert without people. If the spectators are inside, they severely limit the pilots options. The unconscious pilot or major structural failure causing an aircraft to leave the racecourse is a much less common event.

- look at the course on google earth. the grandstand is a small target compared to all the open desert around it.

The NTSB briefing was pretty rational. I'm not as worried about the FAA stopping things as I am about the insurers.

Looking forward to Unlimited Airplane Racing this September,

Pete

None taken at all... IMHO you're right on all of your points. I want air racing to survive as much as everyone else here. and personally believe that one terrible accident in all these years is still better safety/ odds than a lot of other events. Bbut the powers that be are often very reactionary and do stupid things to look like they're reacting.

c170pete wrote: with NO OFFENSE INTENDED to you EZFlap,
First, measurable, quantifiable improvements take time and numbers of events to measure and quantify, and changes can only be measured by running the race.

Some high speed failures have led airplanes outside the course, like the structural failure of Miss Ashley II, but the momentum of THIS airplane was actually moving back toward the course, not outbound. Mostly straight down, yes, but slightly toward the infield.

Moving the crowd inside the course is not desirable from a spectator point of view.
- cannot see the whole course at one time and have to turn around all the time
- the current config has the sun at the back of the spectators, not in their face

this is not practical
- how do you get spectators, vendors, and services in and out of the race course all day? No easy way to move that many people across the runways while running a show, parking still would need to be on the outside, no money for pedestrian tunnels

this is not safer
- centrifugal force and momentum is only one of the many factors to consider

- there have been more crashes inside the course than outside. many of these were ailing airplanes (blown engines, coolant leaks, runaway prop governors, failed propeller blades, overheating, smoke in the cockpit, and a midair collision) with conscious pilots with at least some control looking for any runway, or flat piece of desert without people. If the spectators are inside, they severely limit the pilots options. The unconscious pilot or major structural failure causing an aircraft to leave the racecourse is a much less common event.

- look at the course on google earth. the grandstand is a small target compared to all the open desert around it.

The NTSB briefing was pretty rational. I'm not as worried about the FAA stopping things as I am about the insurers.

Looking forward to Unlimited Airplane Racing this September,

Pete

Not a lot of new info in this article, but a good NTSB graphic of the race course layout at time of the incident.

http://blogs.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/2012/04/changes-at-the-reno-race-track/