This will cast a pall over all aviation events, I’m afraid.
At least the ones in which elderly pilots drive elderly airplanes in races where winning and creating excitement for the spectators sitting under the path of the aircraft is more important than common sense.
I have posted earlier that the dozens of pilots killed, and dozen spectators killed in recent decades, for this small event, would be like 3000 annual NASCAR fatalities. (”Whee! It’s fun to see guys go fast!”)
It’s insane, and a friend whose father was a naval aviator decades ago participated in Reno, and said that it was irresponsible, and he would never go back.
Shut the sucker down until they can ensure that a failure on a vintage aircraft with an elderly pilot won’t wipe our innocent spectators.
This was friggin’ NASA Challenger disaster logic. (”It ain’t crashed before, so let’s keep lowering safety standards until we have a disaster - Duh!”)
Actually, it was not an “elderly airplane.” It was a “scratch built” (i.e., a new or “zero time”) aircraft which resembled a P-51. As I understand it, there were no P-51 parts in the airplane.
FYI, the FAA does not allow Airshow aircraft to fly over the spectators. My memory is that spectators are at least a quarter mile south of the racing line — no one is “sitting under the path” of the race.
And, your remark: ”It ain’t crashed before, so let’s keep lowering safety standards until we have a disaster - Duh!” is a most ignorant comment!
You do not have a clue about aircraft or air race safety — the safety standards at Reno are continuously being critiqued, evaluated, and revised to provide as much safety as is humanly possible for the pilots, crewmen and spectators.
You should retract your statements, pal. What happened was a tragedy, no question about it. But your unfounded and ignorant comments are not going to help matters any.