Reno accident report available

Makes you realise how good photography can be a real boon in a case like this.

You check them by tightening the bolt up by hand, if it goes through the stiff part you replace them… in fact I NEVER reuse stiffnuts, I always replace them.

You should be able to see the thread come through as one of the checks is to see if they are in safety, that is 1 full exposed thread showing through the nut (USA) or 1 1/2 threads (UK) that ensures the screw thread is fully through the locking portion for maximum grip and safe.

🙂

In the last few months, Mike Houghton, RARA President, has been talking about this year’s event being in jeopardy if $500,000 was not raised by December 15th. Just in the nick of time, we were told the event is back on. This leaves many people wondering about the long term viability – and if this will continue to be a year to year endeavor.

Houghton is no longer RARA President, the post, along with several others, having been eliminated as a cost-saving measure.

“The investigation found that the condition of the trim tab attachment screws’ locknut inserts, which showed evidence of age and reuse, rendered them ineffective at providing sufficient clamping pressure on the trim tab attachment screws to keep the hinge surfaces tight.”

I’m not sure how you would scrutinize lock nut inserts without dismantling. If the bolts were fully home and tight/torqued then they would appear to be fine, even if they had been reused or lacked high tensile strength. Especially as it would appear as they were inserts, so still attached to the elevator, then my guess is they would not be visible when assembled.

It’s easy to criticise or suggest that scrutineering would have prevented this tragedy, but that is the wonder of hindsight!

Racing at Reno is still very much in the spotlight, and a lot of questions hang over the future of the event.

”Since the Galloping Ghost crash of 2011, the Air Races have been plagued with financial concerns and rumors about closing the doors.

In the last few months, Mike Houghton, RARA President, has been talking about this year’s event being in jeopardy if $500,000 was not raised by December 15th. Just in the nick of time, we were told the event is back on. This leaves many people wondering about the long term viability – and if this will continue to be a year to year endeavor.”

http://pylonplace.blogspot.co.uk/

Sorry to drag up an old thread, stumbled across the full report looking for something else, it includes a lot of pictures showing the tab failure in flight, the pictures showing the fuselage distortion shows some of the strain it was under in flight,

full report here

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2012/AAB1201.pdf

Some of the modifications and the lack of an understanding as to why they had been done makes frightening reading.

J Boyle – not strictly true . In the case of the Lightning he choose to fly it inspite of the fuel leak and other issues . He wasn’t forced to fly it.

Another sad accident. I went to Reno in 2006 and enjoyed a trip in a Stang.
I remember seeing Jimmy and his helpers polishing Cloud-dancer.
The spirit at that one event was/is like no other – lots of aviation petrol heads/race fans all having fun.
This is certainly one report that the racing community can learn a lot from. Flutter and/or control buzz has always been a scary phenomena and still (like several other aerodynamic phenomena) not that well understood. I have been digging a Mustang for several years that lost a wing which I think was a ‘flutter’ loss. The Mustang has a big ammo/gun bay cover on the upper surfaces of the wings. They used to come open in flight so, a speed limitation was set, whilst a modification to ‘fix’ the fasteners was pursued. The dig Mustang’s door likely came open/closed/repeat cycle putting a cyclic driving force into the wing exciting the natural resonant frequency.

this was effectively a new aircraft. one without prototypes and test models or even a series of production test pilots testing different parts of the flight program. i doubt very much that there would have been endless wind tunnel model tests to destruction and stress meters recording away due to the massive costs involved… . “”anything”” flown or driven at full belt is going to pop a rivit,blow a gasket or have a major malfuction at some point even if there has been a full development program beforehand… just look at the any part in the history of aviation and there will almost certainly be an accident of some description..

i would hate to blame or point the finger at such a serious and unfortunate loss. i leave that up to the people who know better and who are qualified to do so becouse they are better informed and are payed to make those kind of decisions.

If this initial Report is taken in context with the recent SACAA Report into the Thunder City accident, it seems that however different the two incidents may have been there is a degree of commonality.
1 Individuals/organisations did things to aircraft that they were not licenced, or ordered to do.
2 Having done it, whatever was done was not checked with sufficient rigour as being either right, or safe.
3 Individuals/organisations did NOT do things to aircraft that they should have done.
4 Having NOT done it, it was not checked with sufficient rigour that the aircraft was safe to fly in accordance with the manufacturers/operators SOPs.
Just keep that in mind at the next airshow you and your family visit (wherever it may be). The majority of aircraft will have been serviced to the highest standards. A simple majority is not enough!
Je reste ma valise – and wish I was a lawyer!!!
Resmoroh

I’d point out that there is a huge difference, the Mustang was not being used for rides for paying customers.
One was a “stock” aircraft…and was not maintained “by the book”.
The other was truly an “Experimental” …where mods are permitted.
(Hense the name…:rolleyes:).
It was only a cruel bit of fate that innocents were killed and injured in the Reno crash….anywhere else on the long course, only the pilot would have died.
The Lightning crash has a lot more cuplability…someone sent a pilot up in a plane and allowed it to fly with known maintenance issues. That’s a huge difference.

Incidentally if you doubt the thoroughness of scrutineers

Unfortunately the quality of scrutineers in car racing varies enormously, so I suspect it would in air racing. On one occasion I watched a neighbour’s Ralt get scrutineered. There was a lot of fuss over the driver’s underwear (wrong labels) but the scrute failed to observe that the seat belts had no bolts holding them in.

Other highly modified unlimited have modified the horizontal stab angle so that at racing speeds the trim tab is pretty much in line with the stab & not sticking out into the airflow. Therefore not much stress on the tab. GG didn’t have this mod so the tab was sticking out a lot & under greater stress than that on Strega etc.

It is impossible to say that a scrutineer would definitely have seen the problem but there was mention of a fatigue crack in or around one of the screws so that must increase the probability that it would have been noticed.
F1 are trying to level the playing field in terms of restricting testing to reduce the performance advantage gained by the better financed teams who can afford to pay for more testing. F1 is definitely not cutting corners in terms of safety. All monocoques have to undergo a crash test and any major redesign needs a further crash test. If you can’t afford to pay for the monocoque for the crash test and for any retest if the monocoque doesn’t pass first time you can’t go racing.

There was a lot of publicity not so long ago over CAA reservations about unrecorded and or unapproved mods on warbirds flown here and as a result many were grounded pending clarification of their staus even though many of the mods had been done years ago often way before the aircraft were acquired by their current owners. It seems quite reasonable that the mods made to unlimited racers should be documented and checked in the same way and the onus should be on the race teams to show that the mods have been properly engineered and won’t jeopardise the structural strength or controlability of the aircraft. Admittedly it probably isn’t an easy thing to police but it is a reasonable and appropriate step to take after such a tragic accident. We can’t avoid what has already happened but we can learn and take sensible, but not overly restrictive precautions in future.

Incidentally if you doubt the thoroughness of scrutineers I once competed in a motorcycle trial which involved travelling about a quarter mile on public roads to get from the only available parking area to the land where the sections were laid out. The bike was taxed and insured but was rarely used on the road. The scrutineer refused to pass my bike as fit to compete because the speedometer drive seized when he turned the front wheel to check it and he wouldn’t let me push the bike the quarter mile either so I had to forfeit my entry fee and couldn’t compete. The decision was a bit harsh in view of the distance involved but it does show how thorough a good scrutineer can be..

Would a scrutineer have spotted this and if they had passed the airframe as fit but the plane still had the same crash how much of the blame would be filtered to them.

“The investigation found that the condition of the trim tab attachment screws’ locknut inserts, which showed evidence of age and reuse, rendered them ineffective at providing sufficient clamping pressure on the trim tab attachment screws to keep the hinge surfaces tight.”

I feel that testing should be compulsory but even F1 racing are trying to level the playing field.

I have wanted to go to Reno ever since I saw a picture of the black and yellow checkered Mustang Miss Bardhal in a magazine around 45 years ago but unfortunately I haven’t made it yet.
If I ever manage to go I accept that there is a risk of accidents due to overstretched engines deciding to call it a day – that is something that happens in any kind of racing. On the other hand I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect that the aircraft participating in the races have been checked to ensure that they are structurally safe to operate within their projected flight envelope.
In Formula One the cars are scrutineered at every meeting and modifications are tested either during test sessions or during free practice when there are few spectators. Most modified parts have also been tested in the wind tunnel long before they appear at the circuit so they are known to be structurally sound before they are ever put on the car. Obviously the budget isn’t available to carry out wind tunnel tests on unlimited racers but there should be a requirement to carry out flight tests of any modifications before the aeroplane competes at a public event.
I have read a lot about the philosphy behind the design of Galloping Ghost. The aim was to reduce drag to the point where they could run competitively with the engine at a lower power setting than most unlimiteds currently use with the intention of cutting operating costs by increasing engine life and increasing safety by reducing the risk of engine failure. The reports suggest that the aerodynamic changes acheived this aim. I suspect the mods to the elevator balances were made to make the aircraft more responsive to control inputs but this must carry some risk of overstressing the airframe as it must make it easier for the pilot to over control. It is very sad that the main reason for the accident appears to be that four small screws / bolts weren’t checked properly and I am still amazed that this wasn’t spotted on a preflight check and also believe that it would have been noticed by an independent scrutineer.
We are not talking here about safety measures which dilute the spectacle but about safety measures which aren’t too much more than those which any pilot usually makes before any flight.

How has unlimited become the same as ‘must include untested, unrecorded modifications’?

The report doesn’t seem to be recommending the banning of unlimiteds, just more rigour in the testing and recording of modifications

Richard

Elf and Safety? perhaps we should all wear Hi-Viz jackets as well! Motor/Air racing is dangerous it says so on the ticket, If your worried about a plane landing on your ‘ead Don’t go! it’s a simple choice. If you have never seen and FELT an unlimited roaring down that final turn you really should go…………Just go………..

Yes. But the point I was trying to make was that if you clamp down too much on regs and safety you just end up with a, well a bog standard airshow. Reno IS all about the racing. I’m not saying we should have lots of accidents, just that it is `Reno` that people go and see.

Hands up all those enthisiasts that went to Reno to see the modified Furies, Rare Bare and the P51’s?
Hands up all those enthusiasts who went for the occasional F18 or Harvard display?

Or You could say…..

Hands up who wants to go and see unlimited air racing with the kids and come home with the same number you went with
Or hands up who wants to go and see unlimited air racing and don’t mind coming home with a few kids less due to being crashed on by an unsafe aircraft…….;)

I been to Reno twice as I have always wanted to god since 1970, when I looked at the photo’s in the Control Column magzine. I get bored with airdisplay’s in England unless im working at one. It wasn’t nice to see Galloping Ghost crash. I hope I never see a crash again. But I have seen a few over the years over here. I am hopeing to go to Reno next year. To say thank you to a few people that looked after me, when I was in shock after the crash. I cant afford the trip this year,other wise I would go.

Dave

Yeah i would go to see Mustangs at 250mph ! Far nicer to go and watch Mustangs fly and everyone go home safe rather than see people die -we have moved on from the days of the gladiators and the crowds wanting to see blood!

I would definetely go as well