Who Should be Able to Fly Airshows?

Hacker15e said:
A huge increase in premiums is exactly what happened, as well as precisely the reason it was so tough to get.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't they have just renewed WITHOUT the increase in premiums if it was a 'hardly statistical significant'?
 
Acrofox said:
What is your chief issue? Airshow safety, air race safety, or what?
Click to expand...

I know some people that were there, at Reno, at 'ground zero' of the accident. What they went through I wouldn't wish on anyone. Yes, they were there on their own accord, but if there are things that can be done to improve the safety of the races it needs to be examined.

Also, standing on a soap box saying 'IT IS RACING' isn't going to work. While true, insurance premiums are not going to get cheaper. Same goes for Air Shows. I was on my local Airport Advisory Commission last year and brought up the idea of bringing an Air Show to town. The insurance premium was ridiculous to bring it in and was quickly shot down. If we are not careful going forward, we might be hearing this more and more. The 'XYZ Air Show isn't going to happen this year because of Insurance Issues'.


I'm actually going to say that I'm firmly against the dumbing down of life in the name of safety. Humans are breeding like rats, and there are plenty of them out there; life isn't precious so much as it is "common", and while I have lots of things I want to accomplish I'd rather live a good life than a long one. I choose to increase my level of risk to watch an unfettered, all-out air race, and fly acro, and ride motorcycles, and play ice hockey, and fight with live steel and all the other things I've done that have made my life worthwhile. As long as the decision is voluntary, why should anyone be denied these things in the name of their own safety?

~Fox
Click to expand...

If you saw the aftermath of the Reno crash you probably would have typed something different here.
 
Seggy said:
Shouldn't they have just renewed WITHOUT the increase in premiums if it was a 'hardly statistical significant'?
Click to expand...

They probably paid through the nose to all the claims from spectators. You gotta make your money back somehow!
 
Seggy said:
Then why was it so hard for them to get insurance this year? If it really was 'hardly statistically significant' wouldn't the insurance companies have just run the numbers and give the policy no questions asked or a huge raise in the premiums?
Click to expand...

Look at it the other way- Insurance, as a rule, really likes nice stable numbers. The average auto insured, for example, will likely have some sort of claim at some point, of some nominal value, which their payment into the system is statistically likely to have exceeded long before. The sample set is huge and stable. An annual event, however, has an unknown level of safety. It can be evaluated, it can be guessed, but the big number is the ONE very expensive statistic, which happened one year ago. In some ways, despite all the years the event has been insured, that's the first real datapoint in the system, and it "poisons" the data. Sample set is too small and too volatile in almost all of aviation.

Not that I have a hard-on for the insurance industry, mind you -- I just realize that they have a lot of crap to balance and they don't like stepping up to the table unless they know that they'll come out ahead in the long run. The only way to tempt them out of that is to make the stakes high enough to be worthwhile. It's an interesting game.

-Fox
 
Seggy said:
True.

The thing is insurance policies for these air shows are going to be the driving force. It's going to be harder and harder to insure. The ONLY reason Reno is happening again this year is private sponsors are paying the insurance premium. Also airports aren't going to want to open themselves up to the liability, especially those owned by cities.
Click to expand...

This is different from NASCAR, how? Different from F1, how? Different from MotoGP, how? Of course private sponsors pay the premiums. There's FAR more profit in that expense than there is in cancelling the race and not allowing it to occur. Why do you care how the race is funded? If you don't agree with it don't go. I go because they're cool. And I'll pay for the tickets.

Sorry that your friends were at the incident, but they chose to be there. People have been killed by flying cars and car parts at NASCAR races. It's an accepted risk by ALL who participate, racers, crew, and fans alike.
 
The only people that should be allowed to fly in airshows, of course besides myself because I'm A #1 Top Gun are....

(drumroll please...)

I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!! Ahh, better....

Tomcatter and Tim Martins.

I'm kidding. I love air shows. In fact, I miss going to them. But I understand that I'm probably going to take a wayward tire in the face and get tobacco spittle on me at a NASCAR race, crap can potentially happen at an air show or an air race.

Just don't wreck my $8000 toy or I'll pout on YouTube.
 
Seggy said:
I know some people that were there, at Reno, at 'ground zero' of the accident. What they went through I wouldn't wish on anyone. Yes, they were there on their own accord, but if there are things that can be done to improve the safety of the races it needs to be examined.
Click to expand...

I have a couple of friends who were in a box just a dozen-or-so yards away -- I think a lot of people in aviation do, frankly. My friends intend to go back, to a man.

The insurance premium was ridiculous to bring it in and was quickly shot down. If we are not careful going forward, we might be hearing this more and more. The 'XYZ Air Show isn't going to happen this year because of Insurance Issues'.
Click to expand...

Last year seemed to be a -bad- year for airshows ... but also, insurance costs are up pretty much across the board. Fixing what we perceive as the safety gaps isn't likely to improve the cost of insurance in the near term, if ever.

If you saw the aftermath of the Reno crash you probably would have typed something different here.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have. What about it do you think would have changed me so? Having a handfull of friends there, I was pretty much glued to the pictures and video, and my friends' pictures and video, so I'm assuming here that you're implying that being at the event itself to see the aftermath is what would have changed my tune.

But it wouldn't have.

~Fox
 
Seggy said:
I should have been clearer. Before going around flying circles around tens of thousands of people, the questions we should be asking is if the standards the mechanics use to fix and repair these older aircraft, where parts may be hard to come by, and training to fix these systems are suffice? Or should it go more in depth?
Click to expand...

Roush makes P-51 parts. The same Roush that builds Ford Mustangs. There are numerous companies around that are FAA certified to make the parts for these old airplanes. Same as there are companies that make old cars roadworthy. Ever look at an old Corvette and say, "That shouldn't still be on the road! Where do they get the parts?" I would suspect you don't.
 
Seggy said:
Shouldn't they have just renewed WITHOUT the increase in premiums if it was a 'hardly statistical significant'?
Click to expand...

I'm not an insurance actuary, so I am not qualified to comment on that in the way you're looking for it to have meaning.

That being said, I certainly would not make the direct link between potential risk and cost of insurance premium. Given the fact that the accident DID happen increases the possibility that future lawsuits resulting from any future accidents will pay out lots of money -- THAT is what is the key factor in how much the under-writer is charging. It is not as if there's some huge field of insurance under-writers that the RARA can pick from to get a good price. There are only two under-writers in North America who write insurance policies on warbirds, so I can't imagine there are that many that cover motorsports and aviation events.

Let's not forget that the actual cause of this accident -- a failed trim tab mechanism on a Mustang racer also isn't a statistically significant issue. It happened one previous time -- in 1998. So, given the hundreds (thousands?) of competition laps that Mustangs that have rounded the pylons at Reno without similar incident, and only those two events over a half a century, it's stretching it bigtime to see that there is some kind of "safety problem" that needs to be addressed.

Racers must all ready submit to a technical inspection from the governing body of their racing classes. Pilots must qualify at a Pylon Racing School before they are allowed to race (and if they've been absent a year, they must go back and requal). Reno is more regulated now than it ever has been in the entire history of air racing.
 
Let's not forget that there are all ready a good number of internal organizations that self-regulate the airshow industry. It's not the wild west out there, where absolutely anyone with money can go twist it up at an airshow, as the OP seemed to imply.
 
Seggy said:
If you saw the aftermath of the Reno crash you probably would have typed something different here.
Click to expand...

This is pretty far fetched. We choose to be where we put ourselves, and we all choose to get back into the cockpit, or back on the mic after an incident. People die in this line of work. That's the cold reality. If you haven't lost a friend in this business, you haven't been around it long enough. That's a fact.
 
Hacker15e said:
The Galloping Ghost crash at Reno was the first time in 48 years that a spectator has been killed by a racer crash.

That's hardly statistically significant.
Click to expand...
Many more spectators have been killed at car races in the history of the sport than at airshows or races. Just saying.
 
Seggy said:
Then why was it so hard for them to get insurance this year? If it really was 'hardly statistically significant' wouldn't the insurance companies have just run the numbers and give the policy no questions asked or a huge raise in the premiums?
Click to expand...
It was hard to get insurance because a group on ass hat lawyers in Reno started advertising all over tv and the internet to get anyone who was at or knew some who was at the air races last year to sue for physical and emotional damaged or distress so they could make a quick buck. The lawyers are the reason the insurance was so high, not the crash in itself.
 
Seggy said:
Shouldn't they have just renewed WITHOUT the increase in premiums if it was a 'hardly statistical significant'?
Click to expand...
They wanted their money back. There isn't anything like the Reno Air Races in the entire industry to help balance out the costs related to such a crash. Next year it will be much cheaper.
 
Maurus said:
They wanted their money back. There isn't anything like the Reno Air Races in the entire industry to help balance out the costs related to such a crash. Next year it will be much cheaper.
Click to expand...

They are going to be paying back A LOT more to the victims families than this year's increase in premiums would cover.
 
Which they shouldn't have to...

How much does it cost to have a funeral, or recover at a hospital? How much "lost" work for all involved (keep in mind that those not injured or killed shouldn't put their lives on permanent hold, you have to go back to work or lose your job eventually on birth leave).

I have a feeling that actual cost of getting healthy or moving on is a lot lower than what is being asked (this much higher number that affects premiums).

"Emotional suffering"... Really?

Don't people carry life insurance?

I hope that they include an indemnification waiver to purchase tickets or attend in the future. Yes, this sucks, accidents happen though.
 
"I have a thorn in my ass" - OK / "You're an ass" - Not OK
Just wanted to point out what an (content deleted) Seggy is making himself look in this thread. Remember when you told me I can't comment on airline pilot stuff? Probably should be the same for you and air show performers. At least these guys don't have 50+ people in the back to kill when they land/to from the wrong airport.








(Edit by Doug: Remember the sermon I gave y'all about you can say "ass" but specifically calling someone an "ass" isn't kosher?)
 
ryan1234 said:
I think you have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

I think you make a valid point. It is amazing to me how many people, who are in aviation for a living, who are absolutely patently ignorant when it comes to aviation as a whole. It's almost like some people woke up one morning after going to the airport and seeing a 737 and declaring "I'm gonna do THAT!" who have absolutely no idea that there is a world of aviation outside of the terminal.

But when it comes to espousing an opinion about those things outside of the terminal.... well.... those would be the same people that will tell you that they could care less about GA. Interesting, isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top