Reno Air Races Crash. Interview with Unlimited Pilot

780 KKOH ^ | 9/19/2011 | Bill Manders

[mad_as_he$$]

Here is an interview on local Reno Talk Radio with Matt Jackson who is an Unlimited pilot and vice-president of the Unlimited Division.

Click on the "listen" button for 9/19 and go to about 10 minutes in to hear the discussion.

[mad_as_he$$]

Reno Air Race Crash information from an insider/pilot.

[mad_as_he$$]

Link:

http://www.kkoh.com/sectional.asp?id=25323

[SkyDancer]

The news keeps bringing up the fact that the pilot was 74 years old. Big deal. So long as they can pass their FAA medical exam and are current in make and model of aircraft they fly then it makes no difference how old they are. Chuck Yeager flew an F-15D when he was 74. The chase plane for the flight was an F-16 Fighting Falcon piloted by Bob Hoover, a famous air-show pilot, and his wingman for the first supersonic flight was 75.

[HerrBlucher]

Agreed, age is very unlikely to be a factor in the crash, but the press sure wants to make it that way.....effin dingbats.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Chuck Yeager flew an F-15D when he was 74. The chase plane for the flight was an F-16 Fighting Falcon piloted by Bob Hoover, a famous air-show pilot, and his wingman for the first supersonic flight was 75.

Technically true, but these statements bring up a couple of questions:

Were they dogfighting? Or were they flying straight and level for the press cameras?

Were they both flying solo? Or, did they have a current, qualified F-15 and/or F-16 pilots 'along for the ride'?

[SkyDancer]

They flew alone. Nobody else acting as backup pilot. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Yeager

[MindBender26]

Steve Ritchie is 68 and still flys an incredible air show in an F-104.

[SkyDancer]

Yeah, exactly!!!

[MasterGunner01]

The P-51 that crashed was a racer since after WW2. It was heavily customized and had its horsepower increased so it could do speeds close to 500 mph for extended periods of time.

Age and pilot error was NOT a factor. I have photo essay from a former naval aviator who was there and witnessed the crash. He was one box over from where the Mustang crashed and escaped unscathed. He is still shaken by what he saw.

The P-51 lost an elevator trim tab. This caused the nose to pitch up. At some point, the tail wheel lowered and the plane did a roll to the right. The plane completed the roll in a downward pitch headed for the grandstands. It impacted the spectator’s box one over from the observer. Several people around him were injured by flying debris, but he was not injured.

The crash was due to one or several mechanical failures. It was not due to pilot error or age.

[Yosemitest]

I disagree. "Pilot Error" started this chain-link of events.

Here's some insight on "Wake Turbulence".

Take a look at this photo, and consider the size of the wake.
Also realize that the wake is behind the aircraft and much larger than the aircraft.
Also realize that the aircraft is probably in level flight at just above landing speed.



Here's another photo to consider.



Realize that the larger vortices at the wingtips are NOT visible in this second photo.




A Mustang P-51 is a CAT III aircraft for wake turbulence. Source is almost at the bottom, after ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP. (USA)
I don't know what type aircraft were ahead of him, but I assume the similar type aircraft with similar type speeds.
You also know the definition of:
WAKE TURBULENCE- Phenomena resulting from the passage of an aircraft through the atmosphere. The term includes vortices, thrust stream turbulence, jet blast, jet wash, propeller wash, and rotor wash both on the ground and in the air.
You know that a touch and go/low approach (what is closest to the air racing low to the ground) over the same runway requires, When either is a Category III aircraft- 6,000 feet and that's at a normal landing speed.
These racing aircraft were NOT at landing speed.
You're familiar with the AIM, chapter 7, but just in case you want to review it, click here.
But let's review anyway.
... The strength of the vortex is governed by the weight, speed, and shape of the wing of the generating aircraft. The vortex characteristics of any given aircraft can also be changed by extension of flaps or other wing configuring devices as well as by change in speed. However, as the basic factor is weight, the vortex strength increases proportionately. Peak vortex tangential speeds exceeding 300 feet per second have been recorded. ...

1. In rare instances a wake encounter could cause inflight structural damage of catastrophic proportions. However, the usual hazard is associated with induced rolling moments which can exceed the roll-control authority of the encountering aircraft. In flight experiments, aircraft have been intentionally flown directly up trailing vortex cores of larger aircraft. It was shown that the capability of an aircraft to counteract the roll imposed by the wake vortex primarily depends on the wingspan and counter-control responsiveness of the encountering aircraft.

2. Counter control is usually effective and induced roll minimal in cases where the wingspan and ailerons of the encountering aircraft extend beyond the rotational flow field of the vortex. It is more difficult for aircraft with short wingspan (relative to the generating aircraft) to counter the imposed roll induced by vortex flow. Pilots of short span aircraft, even of the high performance type, must be especially alert to vortex encounters.
(See FIG 7-3-2.)



Something else that you probably are aware of is wind's effects on wake turbulence.
But just remember
A crosswind will decrease the lateral movement of the upwind vortex and increase the movement of the downwind vortex. Thus a light wind with a cross runway component of 1 to 5 knots could result in the upwind vortex remaining in the touchdown zone for a period of time and hasten the drift of the downwind vortex toward another runway. (See FIG 7-3-6.) Similarly, a tailwind condition can move the vortices of the preceding aircraft forward into the touchdown zone. THE LIGHT QUARTERING TAILWIND REQUIRES MAXIMUM CAUTION. ... (See FIG 7-3-7.)

The pilot went under someone's wake, when he should have went slightly above that lead aircraft's flight path ("Pilot Error").
It's my guess that when he experienced the roll from the wake, he counter rolled and jerked the plane up.
Then the seat broke, and he let go of the stick, and down it came.
With over 30 years of air traffic control experience, mostly in the military, that's my educated guess.
Never, but never, cross under and inside a high performance aircraft's track.

I'm trying to save lives, here.
Don't get caught up in the "large, heavy" mentality for wake turbulence.
Don't forget about aircraft category classes (CAT I, CAT II, and CAT III).
Also, helicopters can produce some very dangerous wake turbulence, even though they are physically small.
Never, never, NEVER, forget about high performance aircraft. That error will kill you, and your passengers.

What's my point? My point is to consider:

where the "Galloping Ghost was in the race, and how many aircraft were ahead of him.
How many loops had they made around the pylons?
In other words, how tore up was the air where the modified P-51 Mustang first encountered its roll (the point of the wake turbulence encounter)?

[MasterGunner01]

Point is well taken. Wake turbulence does not take mechanical failure into account. There was observed mechanical failure in this case.

I will defer to an experienced retired naval aviator with over 26 years of experience. He saw things happen that were indications of at least one and possibly more mechanical failures.

He saw the P-51 pitch up after it lost its elevator trim tab. It went into a roll that the pilot was not able to stop and he wound-up in a pitch down attitude where he impacted the ground. Game over.

[PiperShade]

ODT,

Your’e carping about the age of two of the primier pilots in the nation ! Yeager’s SB accomplishments are well-documented, but he also performed a lot of evaluation flights of captured axis aircraft that were a lot more “dangerous”, IMO !

As for R.A. “Bob” Hoover, he was both test and “demo” pilot for NA on the F-86 ! When overrun accident losses hit a high in Korea NAA sent him to Korea to demonstrate to USAF pilots how to fly the F-86 safely ! I’ve met the man and watched him fly many times ! (I saw his very first “demo” of the capabilities of the Aero-Commander at Reading, PA, oh so many years’ back ! [There’s a video of me on the flight line for that show !] >PS

[Yosemitest]

" Wake turbulence does not take mechanical failure into account"

From post #10:

In rare instances a wake encounter could cause inflight structural damage of catastrophic proportions.

[MasterGunner01]

We shall see what the accident investigation finds out.

[Yosemitest]

From a different thread, post #123:

I also remember listening to a pilot at the award ceremony saying that following Rare Bear on the course was the roughest ride he has ever had.
It’s annecdotal but there it is.

Galloping Ghost had just passed the Bear on the back stretch ...

Someone should paint a mustang silhouette on the fuselage of "Rare Bear".

[SkyDancer]

Your’e carping about the age of two of the primier pilots in the nation !

Obviously you didn't really really read my post. What I was carping about was how the media kept bringing up the fact that the pilot in the Reno Air Show accident was 74.

I was bringing up the fact that CHUCK YEAGER AND BOB HOOVER WERE THE SAME AGE! And they both flew jets breaking the sound barrier when they were both in their 70's.

What difference is it regarding age if you pass your FAA physical?

Why is it that people can't or won't read a post thoroughly and understand it before commenting?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

They flew alone. Nobody else acting as backup pilot.

From your source:

On October 14, 1997, on the 50th anniversary of his historic flight past Mach 1, he flew a new Glamorous Glennis III, an F-15D Eagle, past Mach 1, with Lt. Col. Troy Fontaine as co-pilot. The chase plane for the flight was an F-16 Fighting Falcon piloted by Bob Hoover, a famous air-show pilot, and his wingman for the first supersonic flight.

I haven't been able to confirm whether Hoover was alone in the F-16. In any case, I doubt either one was performing high-G maneuvers during this PR flight.

[PiperShade]

Oops ! Mssrs, Hoover and Yeager’s bonifides are well-established in the aviation community ! For many years Hoover used to “organize/pace” Unlimited starts with his signature call, “Gentlemen you have a race !” as he peeled off course in his -51.

Never thought Leeward’s age had/has anything to do with with the incident ! >PS

[SkyDancer]

This is all in response to the 74yo pilot that crashed at Reno and I posted the fact that Chuck Yeager also flew when he was in his 70's. Chuck Yeager radioed that he just passed mach 1.5 - HE passed mach 1.5 - there's no mention that LC Troy Fontaine did any piloting or flew the plane at any time. Yeager was flying the same flight profile he flew when he broke the sound barrier. The F-15D always carries two people. It's never flown solo. There was no reason to mention the LC in back. You fly the plane from the front due to limited forward visibility from the back. Piloting from the back is usually done in emergencies only and pictures show CY in front. As for Hoover, the plane he flew was listed as an F16 Fighting Falcon (called the Viper), not an F16/B the two seat version trainer which would of necessity have a second seat.No mention of anyone with Hoover.

Chuck Yeager wouldn't have done any high-G maneuvers since he didn't do it in the original flight profile.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

This is all in response to the 74yo pilot that crashed at Reno and I posted the fact that Chuck Yeager also flew when he was in his 70's

Of course it is. Your implied assertion is that one 74-year-old pilot is as good (physically and mentally fit) as any other 74-year-old pilot, even Chuck Yeager.

Chuck Yeager radioed that he just passed mach 1.5 - HE passed mach 1.5 - there's no mention that LC Troy Fontaine did any piloting or flew the plane at any time.

No PR there, eh?

here was no reason to mention the LC in back.

No PR there, eh?

When I asked if either one had a co-pilot, you wrote that both Yeager and Hoover were alone in the airplanes, which was not the case at all.

Chuck Yeager wouldn't have done any high-G maneuvers since he didn't do it in the original flight profile.

As I recall, Yeager didn't have a co-pilot when he flew the X-1, either.

If he's supposed to be duplicating his record-setting flight, why didn't they use a single-seat F-15? Why send him in up a two-holer?

In reality, the only similarities between Yeager's 50th Anniversary flight and Leeward flying the P-51 around Reno is that both pilots were 74 years old and both were at the controls of the airplane at the time the flights were made.