NTSB update in Reno

[Race5]

Re: NTSB update in Reno

I attended the press conference and got to meet the director of the NTSB. I thought it was clear that the extra testing and engineering information was going to be required on 'highly modified' aircraft only.

By the way, where is the dead line on the front stretch? I thought it was the north side of runway...

It used to be the north side of the runway. It changed to the south side of the runway in 2010 I believe.

[Pete]

Re: NTSB update in Reno

NTSB charts shown show the dead line (they call it show line) at the SOUTH side of the runway, 874 feet north of the box seats and 745 north of the pits. Doesn't have to move very far to comply with the 1000' guidance.

[MMPerk]

Re: NTSB update in Reno

NTSB charts shown show the dead line (they call it show line) at the SOUTH side of the runway, 874 feet north of the box seats and 745 north of the pits. Doesn't have to move very far to comply with the 1000' guidance.

Exactly what I was thinking yesterday.

One thing to consider, at this point, there are no show stoppers in their recommendations. A couple of more weeks or so and we should know the findings of the Blue Ribbon Panel.

See ya in June if you can be here

[boomtown]

Re: NTSB update in Reno

I'm pretty sure Jimmy was going as fast as he has ever flown in that plane on that course at the time of the accident. Based on seeing most of the laps by 177. The NTSB deals in facts, not speculation.

[taglialavore]

Re: NTSB update in Reno

Always happens the same after these sad sad events.
We tend to over stress the precautionary rules.
To move farther the course, 1000' or 2000' may be the same effect.
To reinforce the controls on pilot health? yes. To reinforce the controls on airplane mechanical and systems health? yes indeed.
We are dealing with high risks sports, and fans love them as they are.
Day will come that only the photographers with cameras armed with BIG zooms will see the race, then buy them the video. Just saying that we will end seeing tiny points in the sky?, but the risk will be there also.
I know, you are right, I was not there and I´m still alive, and I feel deep heartpain regarding that event, but understand me, don´t want to see the end of these beautiful races at least until my final days, that´s all.
IMHO.

[spacegrrrl]

Re: NTSB update in Reno

NTSB charts shown show the dead line (they call it show line) at the SOUTH side of the runway, 874 feet north of the box seats and 745 north of the pits. Doesn't have to move very far to comply with the 1000' guidance.

At some point we have to admit the distance isn't going to make us any safer. The fastest aircraft cover a lot of ground almost instantly. So you get to a point of diminishing returns pretty quickly.

Spacegrrrl

[tim]

Re: NTSB update in Reno

At some point we have to admit the distance isn't going to make us any safer. The fastest aircraft cover a lot of ground almost instantly. So you get to a point of diminishing returns pretty quickly.

Spacegrrrl

Quite right, change the pitch and/or the roll rate after the initial pitch up by just a little and the aircraft ends up at wildly different locations.

[Ron101502]

Re: NTSB update in Reno

G suits? Well as I remember from my USAF fighter pilot days in the dark ages (F-4s) a G suit gave about a 2 G greater tolerance. I don't think that would have helped Jimmy as I have read he may have pulled as many as 11 gs (based on the tailwheel lock failing) and I don't think many pilots, especially at his age could have stayed awake when even 9 gs were applied instantaneously without warning. However I think I recall a G suit maxed out at 11 psi and with only about 5 small bladders. The superchargers on those airplanes could easily supply that without much if any loss of horsepower but I can't think of a scenario where a G suit would prevent an accident. Remeber the Blue Angels don't wear them (although the Thunderbirds do).

Just a thought,

Ron

[Coyote Chris]

Re: NTSB update in Reno

G suits? Well as I remember from my USAF fighter pilot days in the dark ages (F-4s) a G suit gave about a 2 G greater tolerance. I don't think that would have helped Jimmy as I have read he may have pulled as many as 11 gs (based on the tailwheel lock failing) and I don't think many pilots, especially at his age could have stayed awake when even 9 gs were applied instantaneously without warning. However I think I recall a G suit maxed out at 11 psi and with only about 5 small bladders. The superchargers on those airplanes could easily supply that without much if any loss of horsepower but I can't think of a scenario where a G suit would prevent an accident. Remeber the Blue Angels don't wear them (although the Thunderbirds do).

Just a thought,

Ron

Didnt a Blue Angel die not too many years ago doing a too tight turn trying to get back into formation?

I am not an aerospace physician, but I have to wonder if in an incident where a short duration of large amounts of Gs is the issue, perhaps a G-suit might be useful, both in helping the length and severity of a blackout. In the Hurricane Hannah incident, he did wake up and regain control of the AC. Would a G-suit that stayed inflated help a pilot wake up faster?

I have heard the Air Force has been working on a system that detects the pilot passing out and takes control of the AC for awhile. I am sure they have data about the effect....

[Pete]

Re: NTSB update in Reno

G suits? Well as I remember from my USAF fighter pilot days in the dark ages (F-4s) a G suit gave about a 2 G greater tolerance. I don't think that would have helped Jimmy as I have read he may have pulled as many as 11 gs (based on the tailwheel lock failing) and I don't think many pilots, especially at his age could have stayed awake when even 9 gs were applied instantaneously without warning. However I think I recall a G suit maxed out at 11 psi and with only about 5 small bladders. The superchargers on those airplanes could easily supply that without much if any loss of horsepower but I can't think of a scenario where a G suit would prevent an accident. Remeber the Blue Angels don't wear them (although the Thunderbirds do).

Just a thought,

Ron

Interesting that Bob Hannah's wild ride in Voodoo has not been mentioned in this discussion. Similar mechanical failure resulting in a high-g pitch up resulting in an immediate loss of consciousness, albeit with a very different result. (I cant remember the year)

Was Jimmy's age a real factor in this? He looked to me to be in good shape. Hannah was decades younger and he still passed out.

[bill_f]

Re: NTSB update in Reno

Preliminary comments from the FAA -- RGJ 4/12:

http://tinyurl.com/88p8w45

[Leo]

Re: NTSB update in Reno

G tolerance has so many variables, general physical condition, special medical conditions (those allowed by the FAA) diet, smoking, medications, fatigue. I have flown with people that have passed me out with no effect on themselves. I have pulled 4 in a turn and had passengers go woozy.
Training would be a good thing, I don't think it would help in a fast onset like this. Same with a G-suit, if it was really that fast of a g buildup would the suit react fast enough?
As far as setback, in this case it may have made a differenc but that is all chance. I was a bit over 200' from it and the thought keeps coming to me how lucky we all were. A millisecond earlier it would have gone into the pits. A millisecond later it would have hit ME. A millisecond after that it would have been in the static area. A tiny bit more altitude and it would have arced further out on the ramp and possible missed everybody. A bit different arc and it could have gone into the vendors, the parking area, the campgrounds.
In auto racing they can barrier the track for safety because they know where the threat is coming from. In this situation there is no difference (in the odds) if the crowd is 200' or 2000' from the line. like Spacegirl said it just happens too fast and great distances can be covered.