Open main menu
WikiProject Aviation / Air sports / Aviation accidents (Rated C-class)
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
WikiProject Nevada    (Inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.


Airplane modificationsEdit

I've removed a sentence referring to modifications to the plane, for now. There is no evidence so far that this is in any way related to the cause of the crash, and we should not be encouraging speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was deemed important by Reuters, who published the info. We should not encourage speculation, but I think it's notable that the plane was recently modified. We are not, of course, implying that the modifications had anything to do with the crash; we are just mentioning info that was deemed relevant by a WP:RS. Nanobear (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
There is now an article about the plane itself that has info about the modifications: The Galloping Ghost airplane. So maybe there's no need to mention them here. Nanobear (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Number of InjuredEdit

There seems to be a contraction on the number of injuries at the moment. Most sources say the injury count is at 56, but due to "a number of people being transported by private vehicle" that count is too low. Should we continue to use the current known count, or a estimated count which is done currently on the Current Events page. Source: (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There's WP:NORUSH, use what is reported in reliable sources. The total will become clear in a day or twk. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw a report of "missing". This is related to a man who was deceased in the accident and it stated his wife was missing. Assuming that there are people listed as missing either because they have not been identified or due to dismemberment, the number of fatalities are likely to increase. For now, I would have to state this article is not in error, but is evolving and mainly due to the fact that the NTSB, who is the authority in releasing casualty information is very slow in releasing that information. For instance, for over twenty hours it was only being reported that there were three fatalities. BAFRIEND (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Candidate for deletionEdit

Condolences to the relatives and friends of the deceased and injured, but this accident isn't unusual, and probably isn't worth breathlessly reporting in Wikipedia. I have personally witnessed the deaths of three aviators in front of the grandstands at Reno over the years, along with several non-fatal crashes. Where is their story? Why should the 2011 accident require special attention, other than stimulating the morbid fascinations of the contributors to this Wikipedia article?
This article should be deleted. I am not being facetious or callous in my statement, having lost friends and acquaintances in aviation accidents over the years. However, this article serves no useful purpose, any more than describing the lurid details of a highway crash. Leave that to the tabloids. — QuicksilverT @ 07:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

25 dead is a major incident. (I wrote that from memory, but I am way off this case). The trend at Wikipedia tends to feature more detail than in previously. While I'm not sure how good/bad this trend is, I detest the inevitable AFD and round and rounds of debate each discussion gets, almost as if it's a war of attrition. If you still wish to propose it for deletion, please wait a few months. If you nominate it now, it will get snowed over with speedy keeps. As for your other point, it may be possible to create a general list of aircraft accidents. See List of rail accidents (2010–2019), for instance, which details lots of accidents too minor to create an article about (which, too, has been subject to debate as to what ones should qualify for mention). hbdragon88 (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
As I mentioned over on Talk:Reno Air Races, I believe this is the first crash in Reno history to result in spectator injuries, not to mention fatalities. That makes it somewhat different from an "ordinary" fatal crash. rdfox 76 (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The article is a bit thin at the moment, and needs more depth. Not every air crash needs its own article, and this could be merged with Reno Air Races.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I am a air race fan (1995-current, have missed 2 years). I understand the relative importances (why this and not the others), and the fact that the pilots and spectators are all very aware of the risks, and the subtext of risk of cancellation by risk-averse nanny-state types. However, in spite of all of this, when an event hits the top of the Google News page and stays there for a day, it's notable. I also tend to think the other crashes and accidents should get attention too, but i'm an anti-deletionist, so what do I know. :-) KBrown (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You know, it's been several years since I've actively edited Wikipedia, but I saw this and decided to haul my butt out of obscurity. It's this sort of thing, amongst several others, that drives people away from active editing (such as myself!). This crash has been reported by several major news agencies and is all over Google's News site. It's a major event. And yet, we're *already* talking about deleting the article! Wikipedia is supposed to be a near-endless fountain of knowledge. I can understand deleting things that add no value (like biographies of, oh, your neighbor's cat) but come on.

This isn't aimed personally towards you, Quicksilver, but it IS a trend at Wikipedia that goes against what the encylopedia used to stand for back in my editing and admin/bureaucratic days. At the *very* least let it have its own article for a few weeks and THEN maybe we can talk about merging it. Linuxbeak (The cake is a lie!) 19:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this should be deleted. This had a tremendous impact upon the races and has been reported non-stop for several days now. It had a very big impact and needs to remain. DarthBotto talkcont 05:39, 01 September 2011 (UTC)

My input here would be to note precedence. The fact that the space shuttle disasters have had their own wiki articles apart from their wiki pages. And no, this is not like reporting a car accident. This was a disaster that has major implications to an annual event that is linked to over $85 million into a local economy. However, I would personally like to see the title changed. BAFRIEND (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Another case in point would be the Dale Earnhardt wiki article on his death. BAFRIEND (talk) 06:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be merged. -Hal Owea Therguy IIjr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haloweatherguy (talkcontribs) 18:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Galloping Ghost: specific versus type of airplane?Edit

It took several reads of the article before I convinced myself that "The Galloping Ghost" was a specific plane, rather than a nickname for the P-51D in general. I'm not sure how, but it would be good to make this more clear. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Mayday called?Edit

Please note that while the aircraft did pull up as normal when one 'maydays' as of this moment no one knows for sure if Mr. Leeward actually made a Mayday call. I was at the races and I did not hear one called. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The last I heard, it was being reported that you are correct, the NTSB is reporting that there was no mayday and the fact that he cannot be seen in the cockpit is leading to speculation he blacked out and was not in anyway in control of his aircraft moments before the impact. Too early to speculate though. This will just have to be considered a work in progress. BAFRIEND (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge The Galloping Ghost airplane into 2011 Reno Air Races crashEdit

No consensus. DarthBotto talkcont 11:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To continue my thoughts on Galloping Ghost as type or specific airplane, I propose that the newly-created article on the specific plane be merged into this article. The only reason the plane appears in Wikipedia is this crash; nobody will be looking up the plane itself without knowing about Reno. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The two articles should definitely be merged. The Galloping Ghost page was started the day after crash. There are only a few sentences to be merged into the crash article, anyway. The plane itself was not particularly important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I disagree. This was a heavily modified airplane that in fact was certified as an experimental aircraft. To a pilot, or someone that is involved in aviation, the plane will become a subject of considerable concern, once the NTSB issues its crash report(s). The plane, the pilot and the tragic event are each worthy of consideration. I am a pilot and have been to reno & the other aircraft already have pages on Wikipedia: [1] as a example. Fact is this aircraft was only just brought back into the racing after years of "rest" and restoration. The pages should NOT be merged.WPPilot 15:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I oppose the merge. Like the previous user said, some people are interfere in finding out about the plane. I had heard about the crash but came here to learn more about the plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Speculating that it may become notable is not enough. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Could someone post the relevent wikipedia policies and guideline for this kind of thing - they're too hard to find for anyone who doesn't already know where to look. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Ask and you will receive. There are no specific guidelines for airplanes, so the general guidelines apply; see Wikipedia:Notability. The crash was clearly an "event", for which there are specific guidelines; see Wikipedia:Notability (events). HairyWombat 17:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks HW ! -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 13:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support merge At this point, most of the airplane article is just a replica of this article. If it does become notable later, with more specific coverage by the NTSB and others, then an article can be spun out on it. But, for now, it should be a section in this article. SilverserenC 16:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The plane like the other planes that were in the race already have, needs its own page. If you were involved in aviation or a pilot you would agree, unconditionally. WPPilot 16:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC) User talk:WPPilot
  • Support merge for the aircraft's article. I'm an aviation enthusiast, however disagree that this aircraft is notable enough to merit it's own article. An example of a notable aircraft, IMHO, is the Enola Gay. Regards, DPdH (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

A question: if this plane hadn't crashed, would it be important enough to have its own Wikipedia article? Being "heavily modified" is certainly not sufficient; if that were the case then we'd need thousands (millions?) of articles on various cars/planes/boats/houses that had been so. (Do note that the airplane's article was only created after the crash.)

If the primary (or even only) justification for giving this plane its own article is the crash, then the plane should be described in the context of the crash's article, and does not need its own. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

  • The plane was a modified P-51. The modifications were so significant that it became its own "Type" of airplane under the experimental class. Some of the modifications included reduction of the wings and controls. This is one of the most significant aviation racing event that has taken place in over a hundred years of flight. The data regarding the plane, the modifications and its "history" will continue to grow as other editors contribute. That would overwhelm this story in no time whatsoever and imho it already has. This story has a few short lines and the story about the plane is now providing reference links to the reporting media, with background about the plane. WPPilot 16:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support merge of The Galloping Ghost - no indication of notability besides the accident. No speed records, no military history, nothing. Just another customized vehicle. -- Theoprakt (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge of plane article. Clearly the crash was notable. The plane would have been of interest even without the crash - people write books on aircraft that talk about surviving planes - especially ones that still fly. It is of course arguable that if the crash had not happened, the plane would have merited mention in an article on surviving P-51s, but not necessarily an article on its own. The case for its own article before the crash, would have been reinforced by its public role. Given that the crash has happened, and that the plane was already somewhat notable before the crash as a surviving, air-worthy P-51 that had a public role in various films, I think the case for it having its own article is strong.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Can you give me sources about it's history before this crash? Do note that the section in the article about before the crash is sourced to what appears to be an unreliable website and a book that doesn't appear to mention the airplane at all. SilverserenC 17:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Since I was the one who created that section, I believe that I have learned enough information to prove the history of the plane. To start with the book, the fact that the book does not mention the Galloping Ghost by "name" is true. What it does mention is that two people named Steve Beville and Bruce Raymond who bought a P-51D "named" P-51D-15-NA from the place of Walnut Ridge. (Pages 64 and 65 for those checking) Taking the "name" into account, if we check the supposed "unreliable website", the php version that is listed in the section instead of the outdated shtml version that is listed in the post above mine, the "NAA Type" of The Galloping Ghost is P-51D-15-NA. The same website also says that the serial number of the Galloping Ghost is 44-15651. Comparing that to the book, on page 65 where it says that the AAF serial number is 44-15651. For more proof on the matter, from one page of Leeward's own website it mentions that a plane called the "Galloping Ghost" with the race number of 77 was driven by pilots Steve Beville and Bruce Raymond in several air races from the years 1946 to 1949, all of them have the location listed as Cleveland, refering to Cleveland, Ohio. (The book mentions Beville and Raymond wanted to compete in air races in Cleveland in 1946, mostly on Page 65) Heading back to the php version of the website mentioned eariler, under "History/Previous Identities" says that in the year of 1946, the aircraft The Galloping Ghost was considered surplus at Walnut Ridge, matching eariler information. It continues that it was sold as surplus to two people, Steve Beville and Bruce Raymond for a price of $3,500. (Page 64 in the book mentions the price as the same) It would be in 1949 named the "Galloping Ghost" with the race number of 77. I believe that this is enough proof that the aircraft that is listed in the book, the aircraft listed on the website, the aircraft that Leeward's own website mentions, and the aircraft that was involved in the crash are, without a doubt, the same aircraft. (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge The Galloping Ghost airplane & Jimmy Leeward into 2011 Reno Air Races crashEdit

No consensus. DarthBotto talkcont 11:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't see any need for additional articles that can fill a single paragraph in this article. It may have been interesting that the aircraft was modified, but that does not mean it warrants its own article. For example, look at the 1973 Paris Air Show crash. There is an article for the kind of aircraft the prototype Tupolev Tu-144 was built as, but they don't have a page for every conceivable matter relevant for the subject. DarthBotto talkcont 18:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge of Jimmy Leeward. He is notable in his own right, even if he hadn't died in the Reno crash. (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Wait for more information The accident is certainly notable in its own right due to the fatalities (see WP:AIRCRASH). I'm not sure yet on the pilot or the airplane. The pilot appeared in several movies and was an apparently wealthy real-estate entrepreneur. Right now his article is a classic WP:BLP1E but it'll take more digging to find out for sure. The airplane had a long race history so it might too be notable in its own right depending on where it raced and if it ever won a major title. We really don't know yet. So for now, let's let the details on the ground sort themselves out and we'll have this discussion in full once we have a more complete picture of both the accident, the pilot, and the airplane. N419BH 20:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm also wondering whether the aircraft and the pilot would indeed be notable by themselves. Let's wait a little to see if someone can find information confirming their notability. Nanobear (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support merges No need for three separate articles. Reywas92Talk 21:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge Currently, it is too soon to decide to merge the three articles together, especally into an article that currently has less information than one of the other three articles. I suggest that we should wait for now as there is no clear reason to merge the articles besides to save space. (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge of Jimmy Leeward - I do not see why we should reduce a person with several IMDb entries to the last tragic moments of his life.
  • Oppose merge for the pilot's biography. Whether this person is notable enough to merit it's own wikiarticle is a different discussion, that should be done in that articles's own talk page. Regards, DPdH (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge all - as far as bio goes, no one has anything on him prior to 1982, when he started Leeward, and then it's all of one sentence. After that, there's a bunch of vague material on "various stunt credits", and then his death. As for the plane, the most we have is that it was a heavily modified P-51. Their notability as topics stems entirely from the events of the air crash, and do not stand up to GNG in their own right. MSJapan (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The only reason that there is one sentence is that I am not the best writer at times. I did not want to repeat what the article said so I wrote a little and added the references so someone who was a better writer could improve it. (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • 'Support aircraft merge and Oppose bio merge - The person seems notable enough for Wikipedia, but the plane itself probably isn't.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 05:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support merge - These articles are so closely intertwined, it makes sense to have them grouped in one article, rather than three short fragments of articles. Gaijin Ninja (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that The Galloping Ghost does have some sort-of notability outside of the accident. In addition to the accident, it was the last P-51D to be sold to the public at the then-Walnut Ridge Army Air Field, not to mention the fact that it was a racing aircraft. In any case, I will say again that I do not support a merger of the articles at this time as it is too soon to judge. (talk) 07:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Support merge both Both fail on encyclopedic notability. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 13:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment A Google search on Jimmy James "Kent Leeward" biography reveals no biographies, if no-one has seen fit to create one before the crash then it's a clear case of being famous only due to the crash, as covered by WP:BLP1E. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 13:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support For The Galloping Ghost. Oppose for Jimmy Leeward. The plane is only notable for the event, while the man is notable for other things as well.--JOJ Hutton
  • Oppose both This plane was built in 1946, has a long history, and the fact he appeared in several films, notable aviator.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I also oppose the merge ... as one earlier opposition post put it, Leeward is of interest in his own right. Don't see the need to merge it and dilute his story. He was one of the world's premiere P-51 and vintage war bird aviators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyprod1 (talkcontribs) 19:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose both mergers. I think that based on information what is currently in the articles, both the pilot and the plane are notable in their own right. A famous air racing plane and a famous air racing pilot. Nanobear (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support mergers - BIO1E, and the aircraft is not notable except for this crash (ie didn't break records etc).--Cerejota (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Evidence that shows it broke at least one record. Yet to be added at the moment. (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The information has now been added to the article. (talk) 03:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The aircraft was notable in that it has been raced since 1946 and several times won the Unlimited Class Gold Race. No other Unlimited Class racer has a history as long as this. Aeroweanie (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge. As someone completely outside the scope of this article, the plane itself is not notable for a stand-alone article. Before the crash, the plane was a mere "toy" for some owner. Due to the crash, it is now known. Therefore, the plane's article should be merged into the crash. Though, a merge in the other direction is also feasible. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 06:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess that there is still more proof that needs to be mentioned or repeated so I will respond to point out several notable facts.
Notability - The aircraft you mentioned was an aircraft that was the last of its type that was known to be publicly sold, an aircraft that had prototype modifications made to it before the accident, and has broken a record in the past; 1947 - breaking the record for fastest closed-course speed. In addition, Aeroweanie pointed out two more points of notability, namely that "The aircraft was notable in that it has been raced since 1946 and several times won the Unlimited Class Gold Race. No other Unlimited Class racer has a history as long as this." This is also ignoring notability that happened due to the crash. I could be wrong as this currently, but I believe that the article has enough notability to remain, unmerged.
I would like to point out here that according to the guideline on notability, Notability (events), that is says the following in the section "The event"; "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." The article is about a recent event and we have yet to see any lasting effects at this point, but the article is being repeatedly considered to be not notable because it was created due to the accident. (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a need to distinguish two different types of notability: "Should it be mentioned at all?" and "Should it have its own article?" Clearly this article can give some details about the plane and the pilot, but the case for a separate article for both is unconvincing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge the Ghost. Event is notable but not convinced the aircraft was. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Both Event and Aircraft were notable.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Definitely merge the plane article with this. I'd probably support merging the pilot as well (BIO1E). Three articles on one event is ridiculous. Resolute 14:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
If it was three articles on the same event, then I would not feel the need to type this. Instead, I have to point out that we have three articles that all have a major event that occured to them all. Jimmy Leeward has both his career and his life as an actor that are not mentioned well in this article if at all. The aircraft as a history from before it was involved in the crash, dating from 1944 to 2011. If the article are merged, then fine. Though the articles are not completely about the same event. (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge Galloping ghost with the Reno air crash, but Oppose any other mergesPetebutt (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Both as they are separate entities with a history prior to the crash. The plane was notable enough to have its own article, the pilot arguably was as well. --Travis Thurston+ 17:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - That is a poor argument - everything has a history if it is around long enough, but existence is not notability. Second of all, having an IMDB entry as a stunt pilot has not been defined as notability either - don't conflate or overextend WP:ACTOR here. If these subjects were so notable, we should not have all the information about them we have coming after a third event in which they were both involved. Leeward's bio is coming from other sources, and is sketchy at best - there are multiple decade-plus gaps in his "career", we don't know what he did for a living, whether flying or otherwise, there's no family info, no education info, and so on. In short, the basic requirements for biography are missing. MSJapan (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Since this is still here, I just wanted to mention that if there is a merge then that is alright. However, I do not think there should be a merge at the moment for two reasons. The first reason would be that by merging the articles, it would be taking two articles and merging them into an article which currently has less quality. The only problem with the Galloping Ghost article is that it does not meet the criteria for B-Class only due to Grammar and style. However, this article not only has an issue with Grammar and style, it also does not meet Coverage and accuracy, which leads me to question either how accurate this article is or the article does not cover enough about the event, which leads to my second issue. This article does not talk enough about the accident in my own opinion. It talks about it for a few sentences, then goes on to talk about infomation that could be read on the Galloping Ghost article, continuing on to sections about previous accidents, but never goes back to the accident.
I feel that this article should be improved with more accurate information on the accident in question before a merge can happen at this present moment. I do not see any reason why to take the other articles and combined them into an article that barely mentions the event it was created for in the first place. (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


  1. ^

Crashed into spectators?Edit

Is this confirmed? I've watched six different videos and it appears that the aircraft impacted the terrain near the spectators. Flying debris and shrapnel appears to have caused the injuries.

-- (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it hit the box seats. N419BH 20:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The LA Times shows that it crashed on the tarmac in front of the box seats,0,1635373.graphic — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

And someone commented "bluelyon at 10:05 PM September 17, 2011 This isn't correct. The crash happened into the first two rows of box seating near the center of the box seats, not far to the left as you have here. I know. I was there." (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Trim tab lost before crash?Edit

This flight Global page, may be of interest. (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I would personally like to see more information. Videos show the horizontal stabilizer flapping away. Whether that was the cause...I will let the NTSB decide and not speculate on the matter myself. Trista (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree. (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


Early in this article are the phrases, " . . . the plane rounded up . . . and then rounded down . . . ." The use of "rounded" here is meaningless as an aviation term and grammatically. The plane may be said to have pitched up or to have pulled up. After it rolled inverted it fell into the vertical and impacted the tarmac. (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)-A private pilot

It's too early to say it "fell into the vertical" as that would imply no control and we don't know yet. The aircraft pitched up, rolled inverted, then pitched down and impacted terrain. Also, there appears to be a piece missing from the tail surfaces. That's all we know. N419BH 23:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • My mistake, I am a pilot as well as a sailor. The term rounded up is a sailing term, and you are correct in that pitched would be the correct word in ref to this event. WPPilot 06:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
    • At first glance, the way the debris scattered it looks like he was trying to avoid the spectators and was less than vertical when he hit. (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Actually, photos appear to show him head down (aka unconscious), with the elevator in an extreme pitch-up position and an elevator trim tab missing. If this is correct, the question becomes which happened first, the trim tab coming off or the pilot blacking out. Either one could cause the other; the trim tab coming off could cause high g-force and a blackout, or some sort of medical problem could cause the pilot to involuntarily jerk back on the stick hard enough to overstress the trim tab. We simply don't know yet. It's also entirely possible that something else caused the crash. We simply don't know. N419BH 01:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

rename and ledeEdit

Someone renamed the article without discussion, I have reverted the change. This event has no "official" name, so we ar eleft to make our own mind, WP:AT suggest a descriptive name, which the "2011 Reno Air Races crash" is a better option than the sensationalism implied by "disaster" - in particular because less than ten dead is not a "disaster" in a world were half a million people die in actual disasters like the Tsunami in Indonesia.

Since we are using a descriptive title, there is no need to use the title on the lede, and bold it.--Cerejota (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say this was a disaster given the fact that it puts in jeopardy an annual influx of $85 million dollars into a local economy. The space shuttle crashes are referred to in their wiki article as disasters and yet less life was lost and no one is calling that 'sensationalism'. I would call an airplane plowing into specators a disasater and not expect to be accused of sensationalism BAFRIEND (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll note that the move was a unilateral move without discussion, has been reverted in compliance with WP:BRD, and the current name is in keeping with the naming standards used in similar articles. I suspect the current title ("2011 Reno Air Races crash") will stick. rdfox 76 (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Disaster or no, "crash" is more specifically descriptive, especially as the article does not yet mention consequences beyond the dead and injured. Let's stick with "crash". PRRfan (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


Is the trivia section really appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Trivia as a header has been depreciated since at least 2008. The bullet point in question could be listed under some "Impact of the crash" header in the future, but the delay of one TV show strikes me as way too...well, trivial, to bear mention. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Both trivial and speculation not backed by a reference. WP:OR. I removed it as such. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Previous incidents sectionEdit

There's a consistency problem here. Of the two listings one is for something involving the plane (which apparently was not always called Galloping Ghost) and one is for something that occurred at an earlier Reno Air Race. It strikes me that one or the other is incorrect, because there is an implied relation that doesn't work. We can ascribe an incident either to the plane or to the event, but not both at the same time. In air crash terms, it's the equivalent of citing every incident at an airport or by a certain make of plane at any airport as "previous incidents" related to a given air crash article. We don't do that, and we should not start now. MSJapan (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be pertinent to mention other occasions when something went wrong with a given airframe.
Ditto, other instances of accidents at a given event - eg multiple instances of aircraft crashing in fog taking off from runway three.
In this case you have the same course and a similar aircraft - seems a reasonable mention GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I might buy the venue item, but for the plane, it's supposedly the same aircraft under a different name (which also is relevant to the whole "aircraft is notable and should get its own article" thing if people didn't know that already), but it was literally 41 years ago - I think it's a bit much. If we're going to go as far as the "similar airframe", we might as well say "P-51s have a history of holes in the tail and wings, a tendency to leak fluids, and a propensity to crash" because they were shot at back in WWII. It's nonsensical, yes, but there as here, the connection of past and present events isn't really there, which is why I don't buy the insinuation. MSJapan (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
It is correct that the Galloping Ghost and the Miss Candace are the same aircraft. The name depends on the owner of the aircraft though the list went like this: P-51D Serial Number 44-15651 --> the Galloping Ghost(first) --> Miss Candace --> Jeannie --> Specter --> Leeward Air Ranch Special --> the Galloping Ghost(second). Leeward owned the aircraft from Specter to the Galloping Ghost(second) which is weird how the name changes several times, but before that the name changed when the aircraft had a new owner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Air racing aircraft change names frequently. It is just a name. If you look at the mods done to this aircraft, there were extensive changes between the time it was Miss Candace and The Galloping Ghost (second). In particular, the engine was changed several times, the canopy was changed and the cooling system was heavily modified at least twice. I would argue that whatever incidents happened to Miss Candace are irrelevant to what happened to The Galloping Ghost (second). For that matter, if you do want to list all the incidents that happened to his airframe, be prepared to add a long list (go look at the wiki page for The Galloping Ghost). It was a racer for 65 years and things happen to racers.Aeroweanie (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Miss Ashley IIEdit

I'm not sure the Popular Mechanics article in the latest reference is correct. According to the NTSB report the entire empennage was lost, not just the trim tab. Can anyone else confirm what was lost from the bird? Trashbag (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed your link, as it wasn't working. nb. you don't "pipe" external links, just leave a space before the links "title". See also Wikipedia:EL#How to link. Regards, 220.101.30 talk\edits (aka 220.101) 17:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary NTSB findingsEdit

    • "The report notes that the modified P-51D Mustang had completed several laps and was in a steep left turn toward the home pylon when, according to photographic evidence, the airplane suddenly banked momentarily to the left before banking to the right, turning away from the race course, and pitching into a steep dive."
    • "Witnesses reported that a piece of the airframe separated during these maneuvers, a fact confirmed by the photographic evidence, the Safety Board said."
    • "After roll and pitch variations, the plane descended in "an extremely nose-low attitude" -- meaning at a steep angle -- and collided with the ground in the box seat area near the center of the grandstands, the board said." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

NTSB report/recommendationsEdit

Apparently the NTSB have issued a series of recommendations resulting from its investiogation into the crash - see this report in Flightglobal. These conclusions probably should go in the article somewhere.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Recommendations to the FAA here, to the National Air Racing Group Unlimited Division here and to Reno here.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Investigation resultsEdit

This article originally cited a Military Times article that completely misstates the conclusion of the investigation. The Military Times article says the cause of the accident was the extensive modifications to the aircraft which weakened its structure and that the aircraft was flown beyond its limits. This is patently false. The NTSB blames the crash on the loss of the trim tab which was itself caused by reused old lock nuts that loosened. According to the NTSB the modifications only contributed to the crash. I corrected this article and cited the NTSB report. I left the citation to the Military Times article as it relates to the modifications. Rsduhamel (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 Reno Air Races crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Return to "2011 Reno Air Races crash" page.