P51 colides with Skyraider

[Tyrannis]

I notice that you're judging someone who is judging someone for judging someone.

What is my experience? My mom married two men, both of whom are veterans, one of which is still serving.
One is vet navy, served on many ships operating on electrical systems.

The other is a UH-60 crewchief and MECHANIC. He has taught me more than wikipedia has taught YOU.

I rather enjoy riding your backside -- it snaps so easily over the slightest of words.

And for the love of god, go get banned again. PLEASE.

And i notice your being a hypocrite.

in the MOH post, you were applauding a you tube comment about telling everyone who didn't know what that man had gone through to get said medal to stop trying to judge what he did.

and yet im basically doing the same thing in this thread, and your going to critisize my words? wow.

and no, that is not YOUR experience. that is the men who have learned it. You go only by what your told. chances are you've never flown an actual ww2 aircraft, let alone a p51,

When i visited Fort Knox back in 06', they let me use one of there Apache simulators. now, imagine that there was an Apache that had an accident tomorrow at an air show. If we go by the Philosophy Your trying to spew out, than that would mean because i was in an Apache simulator, i have enough qualifications to judge weather that Apache pilot did the wrong or right thing. Now ive never actually Flown an Apache, or seen how it performs under various conditions, but just because ive been in a simulator that's TOLD me what it could possibly do and not do, that's good enough qualifications for me to say whether that Apache pilot was good or bad. 

One was a navy vet? great! i fail to see tho how someone who operates electrical systems on various ships would have the experiences and training  to know  the aerodynamics and the performance of Various aircraft, let alone World War 2 aircraft.

The other is a uh-60 crew chief? that's great too! love the black hawk look! but now an helicopter isent exactly a prop-driven airplane now is it? I don't think a UH-60 performs similar to a ww2 P51 mustang. Meaning i don't think his training to fly said uh-60 would qualify him to judge the situation. That would be the same like an Helicopter pilot trying to judge the performance of a jet pilot.


so like i said before, YOU have no position to speak as well Eskimo. my backside has not "snapped". im just not going to let your little forum words walk over me. if you wish to truly upset me, your going to have to do a better effort than the slop your throwing right now.


so ether shut up, or try harder. your choice. 


(p.s no insult is intended to the 2 veterans).

[MrRiplEy[H]]

And what qualifications in life do you have to pass judgement down on a situation that you nether witnessed first-hand, or know the full situation of?
No one here has the right to judge that pilot unless they've been in the situation themselves.
Your all like those youtube people who go on videos and pass judgement down on others while sitting in there armchairs pigging down the durritos.

If youve never been in the situation yourself, you dont have the right to accurately criticize the pilot for his actions concerning an out-of-control aircraft that was just a part of a mid-air collision.

your merely an armchair general making hollow accusations.

I don't need qualifications to participate in a speculation of events. What are you now, UBB terrorist who dictates who can write and about what?

I have every imaginable right to express my opinnions on any given subject whether you like it or not. Your constitution dictates freedom of speech and I'm not breaking any UBB rules that I know of. So please, don't break the rules yourself either by being wannabe-moderator.

[eagl]

I'm pretty sure that the investigation will find both pilots at fault, and they might even find the air boss at fault for allowing the pitchout when spacing may have been a concern.  But I would bet that the skyraider pilot will be found at least partially causal for failing to maintain sight of his flight lead and failing to maintain flight path deconfliction, and the flight lead will (again my guess) be found partially causal for failing to monitor his wingman, for failing to communicate an early roll-out (if that is what happened), and for failing to properly brief and execute a breakout maneuver that requires a wingman to temporarily lose sight of the flight lead and then break out without ensuring visual contact with the flight lead is regained.

A crossover breakout like that isn't exactly "standard".  In the USAF, we *never* do that except for demo teams that do nothing but that sort of thing as their primary mission.  Any multi-ship break is done either in order or reverse order, from an echelon formation rather than "finger four" or 3-ship vic.  That way everyone maintains sight the entire time, and nobody has to cross over anyone else.  They just peel off one at a time starting with lead or #4.  We don't do it any other way because it's hazardous to do it any other way.

So there will be plenty of contributing and causal factors, and the investigators will get to choose which ones get highlighted and pinned on which people.

As for the question about why the stang driver bailed out, I doubt anyone will ask any questions other than "how did you determine it was not flyable?", and then simply document the answer while congratulating the pilot on his good judgement for bailing out before it was too late.  The only people who might dig a bit deeper would be the insurance company, because they have a large cash settlement at stake.  Everyone else is probably just going to consider it a good decision made in the middle of a time-critical emergency, and leave it at that.

I've seen the safety and accident board reports from numerous ejection incidents in the USAF and in every case that I can remember, when the ejection was intentional the boards concluded that the pilot(s) made a good judgement at the time, based on their training.  That doesn't mean people outside the investigation didn't try to second-guess the pilot's actions, but the investigation boards almost always conclude that jettisoning the aircraft was a good decision (even if pilot error was the reason why they got into the situation in the first place).

My personal opinion - second-guessing a pilot's decision to eject is something a shoe clerk or bean counter does...  That's about the harshest perjorative I can think of to describe people who do that.  I lost a friend who rode one in instead of pulling the handle, had another friend who almost lost his career when his wing commander didn't believe him after he ejected from an uncontrollable aircraft, and everyone saw the video of that thunderbird pilot who barely ejected in time during a Mountain Home AFB airshow.  In both cases where the pilot ejected, the bottom line is that the pilots went home that evening.  Anyone doubting the validity of the decision should STFU and thank the pilots instead for not forcing them to have to attend a funeral, because in both cases the pilots would have died if they'd delayed ejecting.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

As for the question about why the stang driver bailed out, I doubt anyone will ask any questions other than "how did you determine it was not flyable?", and then simply document the answer while congratulating the pilot on his good judgement for bailing out before it was too late.  The only people who might dig a bit deeper would be the insurance company, because they have a large cash settlement at stake.  Everyone else is probably just going to consider it a good decision made in the middle of a time-critical emergency, and leave it at that.

My guess is that the stang pilot didn't even know what happened when he began bailout, he just felt a jolt and the plane going out of control (due to the push from the skyraider but how could he know it wasn't from a catastrophic structural failure) and decided to bail. Nobody's going to hang in waiting at that altitude and without an ejection seat.

Any simulation pilot would have just calmly applied rudder, flaps whatever and try to helicopter down to save the plane. But this guy doesn't get respawns.

[Tyrannis]

I don't need qualifications to participate in a speculation of events. What are you now, UBB terrorist who dictates who can write and about what?

I have every imaginable right to express my opinnions on any given subject whether you like it or not. Your constitution dictates freedom of speech and I'm not breaking any UBB rules that I know of. So please, don't break the rules yourself either by being wannabe-moderator.

‎"Too many people have opinions on things they know nothing about. And the more ignorant they are, the more opinions they have." - Thomas Hildern Fallout: New Vegas

[RTHolmes]

The pilot flying the P51 was interviewed on UK television he said his aircraft was crippled in pitch .
Hope that clears this up.

thanks

[Stoney]

the bottom line is that the pilots went home that evening.  Anyone doubting the validity of the decision should STFU and thank the pilots instead for not forcing them to have to attend a funeral, because in both cases the pilots would have died if they'd delayed ejecting.

This...

[Shuffler]

I have an opinion. I find it amazing no one lost their life. Accidents will happen. We can only hope to survive them as this pilot did.

[MiloMorai]

and you are basing that on what?

From no visible damage above the main fuselage structural member. All control cables are above this.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

‎"Too many people have opinions on things they know nothing about. And the more ignorant they are, the more opinions they have." - Thomas Hildern Fallout: New Vegas

You really do try to live up to your name Tyrannis. You're not only ignorant but obnoxious and rude.

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children.

[Tyrannis]

You really do try to live up to your name Tyrannis. You're not only ignorant but obnoxious and rude.

how am i ignorant? i was merely saying us who have never flown an ww2 aircraft, or been in this pilot's situation, don't have the right to judge whether the pilot made the right decision to bail out instead of attempting to save the aircraft.
Thats including myself.  As the quote i posted states, too many people have opinions of things they know nothing about.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

how am i ignorant? i was merely saying us who have never flown an ww2 aircraft, or been in this pilot's situation, don't have the right to judge whether the pilot made the right decision to bail out instead of attempting to save the aircraft.
Thats including myself.  As the quote i posted states, too many people have opinions of things they know nothing about.

Yeah just like you. Point out the exact wording I used to judge the pilot. Thank you and have a nice day.

[flight17]

From no visible damage above the main fuselage structural member. All control cables are above this.

ya, when i wrote that i hadn?t seen a good picture of the actual damage, which as soon as i saw it, i knew why you said that.

Actually tyrannis, i have flown a WWII aircraft and work on Korean/Vietnam era aircraft now, and i know a lot of people in the AH community that have or currently are as well flying war birds in general.

Everyone complaining about people making speculations needs to get over themselves. No one was hurt. Nobody has attacked the pilot for bailing, but have simply said their OPINION is that he MIGHT have bailed from a flyable plane. Most even said they might have done the same. Nobody said that he didn?t try to fly it, but just said that based on the videos, it appears that he could have flown it. It?s not like any statements have been made by the pilot on what exactly happened and people are still saying, "Oh he could have still flown that"...

If i was him, I honestly believe that if i had stabilized the plane like he had done for the amount of time he did it in, then i would try to fly the plane as long as i could. If i feel i can land it, then i would try to. If i couldn?t, then i would ditch it.

[Golfer]

You're basing that on nearly no real actual experience.

I'd challenge you to get out if an airplane as low as he did under ideal conditions wearing a Softie much less 5 seconds after you were focused in your upcoming landing. It's a chunk of metal that's not worth a life and that's the end of it. Killing yourself to save a machine is foolish. Thinking you'll just ditch and that's the end of it is foolish. Rob did right by not dying over a stupid chunk of soon to be destroyed aluminum.

[EskimoJoe]

Cool, you flew in an Apache sim.
In doing so, you learned nothing of the mechanical systems involved inside of a real
chopper. I've visited mystepfather, AT WORK. He did not play video games. He showed me
what this part does, the chain reaction that happens when you lose this cable, et cetra et cetra.

And yes, the UH-60 is a prop driven aircraft. Smooth one there.

Regarding electronics, not applicable in a warbird, perhaps I will admit. However, it is still another IQ point you
obviously lack.

MOH post -- completely irrelevant, why bother bringing it up?
You're simply another one of those idiots shaking your head and spitting at the recipient as far as I care.
You never earned a Medal of Honor, and you've never earned my respect. You are simply a fool.

Your clueless accusations will lead you nowhere.

Also worth noting, I have never once voiced an assumption on this incident involving the P-51 and A-1.
I have merely pointed out, and had you prove, that you are LEAST qualified of ALL here to make any
sort of hypotheses.