News reports coming in yesterday concern an air show. At an air show in Reno, a plane crashed into the stands and killed the pilot and two spectators and injured more than 50. (These numbers, I'm sure, will change with newer reports.)
This is only the latest air show where there has been an accident. I think air shows are totally indefensible. They're dangerous. This from the Wikipedia entry "Air shows": " Air shows present some risk to spectators and aviators. Accidents occur, sometimes with a large loss of life, such as the 1988 disaster at Ramstein Air Base in Germany and the 2002 air show crash at Lviv, Ukraine."
The Huffington Post says, in an article on this most recent crash, "The Reno Gazette-Journal reported that prior to Friday's crash, 17 people had been killed at the air races since their start 1964." This same article quotes a witness at the scene: "'I saw body parts and gore like you wouldn't believe it. I'm talking an arm, a leg,' Higgins said 'The alive people were missing body parts. I am not kidding you. It was gore. Unbelievable gore.'"
They certainly consume a lot of fuel and cause air pollution (and noise). But that's certainly a far, far smaller concern than loss of human life.
The military—Air Force, Navy—supplies many of the planes and pilots used in air shows. The Navy maintains stunt fliers who go around from air show to air show. So air shows actually are a big recruiting tool for the armed services, and that's why they foster them and enable them.
To make the shows thrilling to audiences, the planes perform dangerous manoeuvres. To quote Wikipedia again, "A skilled pilot will be able to climb vertically, perform very tight turns, tumble his aircraft end-over-end and perform manoeuvres during loops." And about the military aircraft used in air shows, Wikipedia says, "The display will usually demonstrate the aircraft's very short (and often very loud) takeoff rolls, fast speeds, slow approach speeds, as well as their ability to quickly make tight turns, to climb quickly, and their ability to be precisely controlled at a large range of speeds." That's why people like them (just as the audiences for car races may possibly actually hope to witness an accident).
Chicago, where I live, has an annual "Air and Water Show." It's very popular. People love air shows and maybe on the face of it that's sufficient raison d'etre. But I think it may be time to take a hard look at risk-versus-benefit.
Update, September 20, 2011
As of yesterday, 10 people had died in the Reno accident. The count of the injured now stands at "more than 60." And there's been another air show crash, in West Virginia.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ok, I get it, you don't like airshows. That's fine. To want to make sure that people aren't intentionally putting other people at risk without their knowlegde is commendable and important.
ReplyDeleteAs you pointed out, air shows are an inherantly dangerous activity for both pilot and spectator alike. However, it is a well-known fact that such shows carry risk to all involved. Those who choose to attend them are aware of the risks involved and have come to the conclusion that the benefit from attending is worth the risk.
Again, I admit that air shows can be dangerous, however one statistic that you yourself mentioned: "The Reno Gazette-Journal reported that prior to Friday's crash, 17 people had been killed at the air races since their start 1964." That amounts to 20 people in 47 years. Compared to other 'high-risk' sports and other forms of entertainment, that is still a STELLAR safety record. I myself recently attended an air show in Winston-Salem, NC. I loved the experience of getting to see not only military aircraft, but also many civilian aircraft that are flying over our heads every single day.
The idea that these air shows incorporate some risk is true. But the idea that they are all too dangerous to continue to be held is not.