Top 10 Jet Flybys..have the sound way up :)

starkiller

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Dr2ZB36p9Y&feature=player_embedded

nooshinjohn

The Blue Angles jets exempted because that's what they get paid to do, impressing the crowds and all, I am outraged at the careless and dangerous games being played with tens of millions of my tax dollars. The pilots should be grounded and given desk jobs.


This is what that kind of reckless conduct ends with, and it's NEVER a good thing...


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/E21byPXR1ek&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/E21byPXR1ek&hl=en_US&fs=1&&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

audiobliss

First video is full of impressiveness; the second made my heart jump out of my chest when I realized he wasn't going to pull it back up.

starkiller

The video of the B-52 crash was shot at Fairchild AFB during practices for the upcoming air show. Was not being done for fun. The pilots made a mistake and it was their last. Also, not all of the 10 videos were American jets/pilots.

phuz

Cool video.

Low flying is an essential skill for combat pilots.

mhmacw

thanks starkiller. i was taking a deep breath and trying to phrase my words in accordance to the new forum rules. you put it so simply and with out emotion in regards to the worlds dumb dumbs i applaud you. that accident was tragic. my wife was born at fairchild and we enjoyed the air show every year until coming to the midwest. i used to work in airway heights and had the distinct pleasure of watching the angels practice. we were in line with the airstrip and boy did they get moving! once in the service we had a group of hawker harrier jump jets do some close fly operations. i can say those little dudes are LOUD haha. i was air delivery in the marines and worked under helicopters. the pilots that can do the really":cool" stuff are the ones you want hovering above you. not some by the book boob as another in this thread is naive enough to elude to. anyway, all hail the flyboys! if it werent for airborn the draft would have to include car salesmen. what a waste of an mre that would be.

nooshinjohn

The Fairchild crash was more than just an accident. The Pilot of that bird had been grounded for dangerous piloting before, and at least one aircraft was damaged so badly with him at the controls that it never flew again. He had told several people that he would rather die flying than live never being able to do so again. That particular flight several members of the crew had to be ordered to fly with him because they refused to do so when asked. The crash investigation came to the conclusion that it was entirely likely that the pilot committed suicide via B-52, but blamed pilot error officially. As I recollect, he was being forced into retirement by the Air Force because of his recklessness.

I take safety around aircraft to heart because I have lost friends to accidents that should never have happened because of stupidity at the controls or incidents on the ground in the handling of them. My good friend, Capt. Andrew "Mutt" Muhs, USMC, was lost in this one...


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jHqq3nQLQto&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jHqq3nQLQto&hl=en_US&fs=1&&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

http://www.air-and-space.com/20020420%20Pt%20Mugu%20QF-4S+%20Crash.htm

There was no risky action here, just bad luck for two guys flying an aircraft that was not fully fit for the actions it was called upon to make. The plane should have never been flown.

Flying 25 feet off the hard deck at 500kt is just a muscle twitch away from death. The "G" forces on their bodies at these speeds is tremendous and that only amplifies the danger. These guys are paid to be "top Guns" no doubt, but their brains should be able to understand that they, and their aircraft, are not any good defending their respective nations when they are splattered across five miles worth of terrain because they were stupid. That's not good flying to me. Skilled, yes, But a good pilot would not take those kinds of risks with his aircraft. I wish I was not on George Grand's list because I am certain he would agree with me on this.

I will give it a rest now. I just wanted you and the rest to understand my point.

starkiller

It's no problem...I just wanted to post a vid about some incredible video shot...not only for the actual skill involved but the reactions of those on the ground

RuSsMaN

Awesome, just facebooked it.

hearingimpared

Those flyboys have some brass balls. I saw your post on facebook Russ.

superjunior

our tax dollars are going to get pissed away one way or another I love the flybys, happens at every nascar race

wutadumsn23

starkiller wrote: »

The video of the B-52 crash was shot at Fairchild AFB during practices for the upcoming air show. Was not being done for fun. The pilots made a mistake and it was their last. Also, not all of the 10 videos were American jets/pilots.

Very true, the crater caused by that crash is still there to this day. i am stationed at Fairchild and have seen it on a few occasions, very sombering reminder of what can go wrong.

nooshinjohn wrote: »

The Fairchild crash was more than just an accident. The Pilot of that bird had been grounded for dangerous piloting before, and at least one aircraft was damaged so badly with him at the controls that it never flew again. He had told several people that he would rather die flying than live never being able to do so again. That particular flight several members of the crew had to be ordered to fly with him because they refused to do so when asked. The crash investigation came to the conclusion that it was entirely likely that the pilot committed suicide via B-52, but blamed pilot error officially. As I recollect, he was being forced into retirement by the Air Force because of his recklessness.

I take safety around aircraft to heart because I have lost friends to accidents that should never have happened because of stupidity at the controls or incidents on the ground in the handling of them. My good friend, Capt. Andrew "Mutt" Muhs, USMC, was lost in this one...


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jHqq3nQLQto&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jHqq3nQLQto&hl=en_US&fs=1&&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

http://www.air-and-space.com/20020420%20Pt%20Mugu%20QF-4S+%20Crash.htm

There was no risky action here, just bad luck for two guys flying an aircraft that was not fully fit for the actions it was called upon to make. The plane should have never been flown.

Flying 25 feet off the hard deck at 500kt is just a muscle twitch away from death. The "G" forces on their bodies at these speeds is tremendous and that only amplifies the danger. These guys are paid to be "top Guns" no doubt, but their brains should be able to understand that they, and their aircraft, are not any good defending their respective nations when they are splattered across five miles worth of terrain because they were stupid. That's not good flying to me. Skilled, yes, But a good pilot would not take those kinds of risks with his aircraft. I wish I was not on George Grand's list because I am certain he would agree with me on this.

I will give it a rest now. I just wanted you and the rest to understand my point.

Very true John, that guy was a disaster waiting to happen. He had to call in many "favors" for an aircrew on that flight, because as you said, most refused to fly with him because they knew what a maniac he was. There is another video of him flying through a gorge shot by a fellow crew member on the ground where he is about 100 ft or so off the deck in a B-52, insane. That was a terrible tradgey here, and like I said above the crater is still there to this day.

-Jeff

George Grand

Boy is there a lot of caca in this thread or what?

Suicide by bomber? Bozo statements = Bozo list! A re-affirmation.

nooshinjohn

George Grand wrote: »

Boy is there a lot of caca in this thread or what?

Suicide by bomber? Bozo statements = Bozo list! A re-affirmation.

Lifted from Wikipedia...

The accident board stated that Bud Holland's personality significantly influenced the crash sequence. USAF personnel testified that Holland had developed a reputation as an aggressive pilot who often broke flight safety and other rules. The rule breaking included flying below minimum clearance altitudes and exceeding bank angle limitations and climb rates.[8]

An earlier incident occurred in 1991 when a B-52 piloted by Holland performed a circle above a softball game in which Holland's daughter was participating. Beginning at 2,500 feet (760 m) AGL, Holland's aircraft executed the circle at 65° of bank. Described by one witness as a "death spiral," the nose of the aircraft continued to drop during the maneuver and the bank angle increased to 80°. After losing 1,000 feet (300 m) of altitude, Holland was able to regain control of the aircraft.[9]

During a May 19, 1991, air show at Fairchild, Holland was the command pilot of the B-52 aerial demonstration flight. During the demonstration, Holland's aircraft violated several safety regulations, including exceeding bank and pitch limits, flying directly over the air show spectators, and possibly violating altitude restrictions. The base and wing commander, Colonel Arne Weinman, along with his staff, observed the demonstration but apparently took no action.[1]

On July 12, 1991, Holland commanded a B-52 for a "flyover" during a change of command ceremony for the 325th Bomb Squadron at Fairchild. During both the practice and the actual flyover, Holland's aircraft flew at altitudes below 100 feet (30 m)—well below the established minimum altitude, flew steeply banked turns in excess of 45°, exceeded pitch angle limits, and executed a wingover. The wingover was not specifically prohibited but was not recommended because it could damage the aircraft. After witnessing the flyover, Colonel Weinman and his deputy commander for operations, Colonel Julich, verbally reprimanded Holland but took no formal action.[8]


A B-52H takes off with a standard pitch attitude.During the May 17, 1992, Fairchild air show, Holland was again the command pilot of the B-52 aerial demonstration flight. During the demonstration, Holland's aircraft again violated several safety regulations, including several low altitude steep turns in excess of 45° of bank and a high pitch angle climb, estimated at over 60° nose high which Holland finished with a wingover maneuver. The new wing commander, Colonel Michael G. Ruotsala, apparently took no action. One week later, the new deputy commander for operations (DO), Colonel Capotosti, on his own initiative warned Holland that if he (Holland) violated any more safety regulations, Capotosti would ground him (remove him from flying status). Capotosti did not, however, document his warning to Holland or apparently take any other kind of formal action.[1]

On April 14 and April 15, 1993, Holland was the mission commander of a two-ship (two B-52 aircraft) training mission to a bombing range near Guam in the Pacific Ocean. During the mission Holland flew his aircraft closer to the other aircraft than regulations allowed. Holland also asked his navigator to videotape the bombs falling from the aircraft from inside the aircraft's bomb bay, also against regulations. Holland's navigator later brought the video to the attention of three Fairchild USAF leaders. The first, Lieutenant Colonel Bullock, the current 325th Bomb Squadron commander, did not do anything about it and may have even tried to use the videotape for blackmail to coerce the navigator into accepting a position as mission scheduler for the wing. The second, the deputy operations group commander, Lieutenant Colonel Harper, told the crew member to conceal the evidence. The third, the DO, allegedly responded to reports of the video by stating, "Okay, I don't want to know anything about that video -- I don't care."[10]

At the August 8, 1993, Fairchild air show, Holland once again commanded the B-52 demonstration flight. The demonstration profile once again included bank angles greater than 45°, low altitude passes, and another high pitch climbing maneuver, this time in excess of 80° nose high. The climb was so steep that fuel flowed out of the vent holes from the aircraft's wing tanks. The new wing commander, Brigadier General James M. Richards, and the new DO, Colonel William E. Pellerin, both witnessed the demonstration but neither took any action.[11]

On March 10, 1994, Holland commanded a single-aircraft training mission to the Yakima Bombing Range to provide an authorized photographer an opportunity to document the aircraft as it dropped training munitions. The minimum aircraft altitude permitted for that area was 500 feet (150 m) AGL. During the mission, Holland's aircraft was filmed crossing one ridgeline about 30 feet (10 m) above the ground. Fearing for their safety, the photography crew ceased filming and took cover as Holland's aircraft again passed low over the ground, this time estimated as clearing the ridgeline by only three feet (1 m). The co-pilot on Holland's aircraft testified that he grabbed the controls to prevent Holland from flying the aircraft into the ridge while the aircraft's other two aircrew members repeatedly screamed at Holland, "Climb! Climb!" Holland responded by laughing and calling one of the crew members "a ****".[2]

After that mission, the crew decided that they would never again fly with Holland and reported the incident to the bomb squadron leadership. The squadron commander, Lieutenant Colonel Mark McGeehan, reported the incident to Pellerin and recommended that Holland be removed from flying duty. Pellerin consulted with Holland and gave him a verbal reprimand and warning not to repeat the behavior, but refused to take him off flying duty. Pellerin also did not document the incident or the reprimand or notify his superiors, who remained unaware of the incident. McGeehan then decided that in order to protect his aircrews, he (McGeehan) would be the co-pilot on any future missions in which Holland was the command pilot. Evidence suggests that after this incident "considerable animosity" existed between Holland and McGeehan.[12][13]


Mark McGeehan, the USAF squadron commander who refused to allow any of his squadron members to fly with Holland unless he (McGeehan) was also on the aircraft.In preparation for the 1994 Fairchild air show, Holland was again selected as the command pilot for the B-52 demonstration flight. Holland briefed the proposed demonstration flight plan to the new wing commander, Colonel William Brooks, on June 15, 1994. The demonstration profile as briefed by Holland included numerous violations of regulations, including steep bank angles, low altitude passes, and steep pitch attitudes. Brooks ordered Holland not to exceed 45° bank angles or 25° pitch attitude during the demonstration. During the first practice session, on June 17, 1994, Holland repeatedly violated these orders. Brooks witnessed this but took no action. Pellerin flew with Holland on that flight and reported to Brooks that, "the profile looks good to him; looks very safe, well within parameters." The next practice flight on June 24 ended with the crash.[8]

Looks to me that the only real Bozo here was the guy flying that B-52. Having been around military aircraft all your life George, I am suprized that you have such little regard for the dangers involved when they are used in such a manner. I stand firmly by my comment, and this snapshot into the pilot's character confirms it. Sadly this asshat took three other lives, so it was more like a murder-suicide in my opinion. There is enough circumstancial evidence to support the claim, but to avoid the huge black eye and severe blow to public confidence, the investigation ignored mentioning them. There was more to this than meets the eye.

phuz

I believe George was referring to you pulling the whole suicide thing out of your ****.

The accident happened because he was trying to avoid a no fly zone during an unplanned but needed manouver, which you would know if you had actually read the wikipedia article.

nooshinjohn

During an unplanned event, the first rule becomes save your aircraft and yourself. For years, the chain of command did nothing to stop this guy. Perhaps I should have pointed out that the word suicide could be used used metaphorically. The guy killed himself with a B52(suicide) and killed three others(murder). The Chain of Command is responsible here for letting a deranged pilot within half a mile of the flightline, much less at the controls of an airplane.


As with most military crash investigations, the true facts will never be known, much less discovered. My friend's QF-4 crash is the same way. The bird he was in was scheduled for being blown out of the sky as a target drone in three weeks after the flight. It had been fitted with some of the stuff that gets put into an aircraft for such flights and the ejection seats were known to not operate properly. The engines were 'high-time" by more that 10,000 hours. In short it should never have flown, but they were told to fly it anyway. The investigation said pilot error was to blame, but knowing the facts about the aircraft as I do in this case, I must draw a different conclusion.

The same is true with the Fairchild incident, in that once again the military knew that there was an accident waiting to happen and did nothing to prevent it. Pilot error, to be sure, but that is not what caused the crash. Derilection of duty and a failed Chain of Command are what allowed the loss of four men and an aircraft to occur. They just want you to believe otherwise.

Jstas

Is there anything that you don't turn in to a personal crusade?

Also, if "...the true facts will never be known, much less discovered.", how can you be so adamant about it being an intentional wreckage much less a suicide?

starkiller

C'mon guys, all I did was post what I thought was a cool set of video's...I would like to post another that is just as cool but doesn't jets or controversy

mhmacw

i thought it was a cool video...especially the one where the deck hand is standing in the middle of the runway.

Jstas

starkiller wrote: »

C'mon guys, all I did was post what I thought was a cool set of video's...I would like to post another that is just as cool but doesn't jets or controversy

I thought it was way cool too and I think it sucks that others have to thread dump with their own personal agenda. I'd like to see the other video you want to post.

George Grand

It is a good post OP The best of intentions though .... People's imagination is a strange thing, but fact is/can be stranger than fiction, however I won't embarrass anyone here with fact vs imagination, yet.

As men, by nature we like things that travel at the speed of heat and make a shitload of noise doing it. Jets fit the bill nicely. I don't mean to be repititious, but I have been at a lot of airshows, and seen a lot of aerial demos. I have been in a few, to include one at McGuire where a -141 was about 2 feet from the nozzle to receptacle behind me, and a -106 was at the right "observation" position about 30 feet off our wing doing horizontal spins as soon as we got in front of the crowd. The -141 guy started crying pretty loud about it so he knocked it off. I didn't mean to get long-winded about that one but the more I typed the more I recalled the day. Couldn't really blame the -141 guy. My crew could barely see the -106, and here he is doing spins 50 feet away from the -141.

The repititious part: If you have not seen (close-up) a -105 do a pass on the deck in burner, you haven't lived. Make you involuntarily **** yourself. There is nothing like the roar of that engine.

Erik Tracy

George Grand wrote: »

It is a good post OP The best of intentions though .... People's imagination is a strange thing, but fact is/can be stranger than fiction, however I won't embarrass anyone here with fact vs imagination, yet.

As men, by nature we like things that travel at the speed of heat and make a shitload of noise doing it. Jets fit the bill nicely. I don't mean to be repititious, but I have been at a lot of airshows, and seen a lot of aerial demos. I have been in a few, to include one at McGuire where a -141 was about 2 feet from the nozzle to receptacle behind me, and a -106 was at the right "observation" position about 30 feet off our wing doing horizontal spins as soon as we got in front of the crowd. The -141 guy started crying pretty loud about it so he knocked it off. I didn't mean to get long-winded about that one but the more I typed the more I recalled the day. Couldn't really blame the -141 guy. My crew could barely see the -106, and here he is doing spins 50 feet away from the -141.

The repititious part: If you have not seen (close-up) a -105 do a pass on the deck in burner, you haven't lived. Make you involuntarily **** yourself. There is nothing like the roar of that engine.

George - that's an oddity of aircraft in a show fer sure...a Delta Dart spinning next to Starlifter?

Can't say I've seen a "Thud" fly the deck, but I did for a Phantom and a Super Sabre waayyy back while I was a wee lad at an air show. My dad was an AF flight instructor at Canon AFB, NM.

nooshinjohn

Jstas wrote: »

Is there anything that you don't turn in to a personal crusade?

Pot, Kettle... Black.:rolleyes:

Jstas

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Pot, Kettle... Black.:rolleyes:

Ummmm....no. I don't have a personal agenda to service. I just detest people in general. Some more than others. Especially those on the Intarwebs.


But why do you have over 2500 posts in 16 months anyway? Don't you have anything better to do with your time?

nooshinjohn

Jstas wrote: »

Ummmm....no. I don't have a personal agenda to service. I just detest people in general. Some more than others. Especially those on the Intarwebs.


But why do you have over 2500 posts in 16 months anyway? Don't you have anything better to do with your time?

I suggest therapy for your problems with people. As for my posting habits, if you are so concerned, I will be happy to discuss it via PM.:)

Jstas

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I suggest therapy for your problems with people. As for my posting habits, if you are so concerned, I will be happy to discuss it via PM.:)

No, I don't need therapy. I'm fine with who I am. Just because you aren't fine with who I am doesn't mean that I'm the one that needs therapy.

SolidSqual

Erik Tracy

I could see that there's a lot of 'thrust' with those back ends!

mhmacw

SolidSqual wrote: »

no thats a hell of a flyby!

nooshinjohn

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q1H1vN2tnPM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q1H1vN2tnPM&hl=en_US&fs=1&&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present The Queen of the Skies...


Long live the Raptor!:cool:

lightman1

Jstas wrote: »

I just detest people in general.

But ...John...You said you loved ME.....I.....I don't know what to say now....I feel .....used.......:(:(