B-52 landing

[DaveBB]

Oh Gawd... Please stop whining. This is not the place to vent your... Whatever that is. At least PM me with your politically correct metrosexual BS instead of hijacking 8thJinx' thread.

Lol, pretty easy to say when you're not sitting in a downward firing ejection seat.

[PR3D4TOR]

What has that got to do with anything? When their tail was blown off they were at 14,000 feet. They could all have ejected safely. They chose not to.

[Traveler]

What has that got to do with anything? When their tail was blown off they were at 14,000 feet. They could all have ejected safely. They chose not to.

Yea, who cares where the aircraft comes down,  they should have all bailed at 14,000 feet.  what an idiot.  I don't believe it had anything to do with them being manly men.  I think it had to do with the fact that they had positive control of the aircraft and enough time and help to work out things to ensure a safe return to earth without killing anyone on the ground.

[Serenity]

Yea, who cares where the aircraft comes down,  they should have all bailed at 14,000 feet.  what an idiot.  I don't believe it had anything to do with them being manly men.  I think it had to do with the fact that they had positive control of the aircraft and enough time and help to work out things to ensure a safe return to earth without killing anyone on the ground.

It's absolutely impressive what they did. That being said, had that happened today, they would like lose their wings for choosing to land rather than eject. I have heard of just such a thing happening with a flamed-out T-45.

[PR3D4TOR]

Yea, who cares where the aircraft comes down,  they should have all bailed at 14,000 feet.  what an idiot.  I don't believe it had anything to do with them being manly men.  I think it had to do with the fact that they had positive control of the aircraft and enough time and help to work out things to ensure a safe return to earth without killing anyone on the ground.

They were in a rather remote area. They were highly experienced test pilots from Boeing at a time were risking one's life was part of the job. They considered it their job to bring that bird home, and they did. To quote one of the greatest test pilots of that era, and of all time:

"You don't concentrate on risks. You concentrate on results. No risk is too great to prevent the necessary job from getting done." -Chuck Yeager.


Btw. you should refrain from making personal attacks.

[PR3D4TOR]

... they would like lose their wings for choosing to land rather than eject.

Civilian pilots play by different rules...

[Serenity]

Civilian pilots play by different rules...

Agreed, and clearly they made a fine choice at the end of the day. I'm just saying, I can cite an actual instance of an experience Strike Aviator flaming out at altitude, gliding down for a PERFECT ditching in a field (And by perfect I mean so freaking perfect that they only had to replace an antenna on the belly of the jet to get it back and flying) and had his wings stripped away because he chose to ditch rather than eject.

[PR3D4TOR]

A clear symptom of the risk-aversion mentality that has poisoned just about every corner of both the military and corporate world these days. To say nothing of the school system. Or I may just be an old fart longing for the old days...

[Serenity]

A clear symptom of the risk-aversion mentality that has poisoned just about every corner of both the military and corporate world these days. To say nothing of the school system. Or I may just be an old fart longing for the old days...

No, I'm with you. I can understand a reprimand for not following the procedures, but I too can't fault a perfect ditch that brought not only both pilots down safely, but saved the jet too.

[pembquist]

I don't think it is risk aversion but more likely failure to follow standing policy and a basic cost benefit analysis. Maybe you want pilots who would rather buck orders and ditch but maybe you don't. There is probably more going on. Also don't forget that moron who flew a perfectly good B52 into the ground practicing for an airshow after repeated complaints about his poor judgment and behavior. I'm just saying it isn't as simple as we would like.

[Serenity]

I don't think it is risk aversion but more likely failure to follow standing policy and a basic cost benefit analysis. Maybe you want pilots who would rather buck orders and ditch but maybe you don't. There is probably more going on. Also don't forget that moron who flew a perfectly good B52 into the ground practicing for an airshow after repeated complaints about his poor judgment and behavior. I'm just saying it isn't as simple as we would like.

It ISN'T, but there's something to be said about making decisions "on the fly" so to speak, in the strike community, and the people making the final decisions don't necessarily understand the real risk and environment.

[PR3D4TOR]

If Normandy was invaded today...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSpUqxewBdg

[pembquist]

Yes you definitely need to have people backed up when they make decisions. It is very important for people to be able to have initiative and not sit around  waiting for orders while things fall apart because they are afraid of being punished. I'm curious, is it a rule to eject if the engine won't restart end of sentence or are there more parameters?

I'm a little confused by your sentence, I assume that you mean that the people making the final decisions are not the pilots. Right? If that's the case, sounds like another iteration of the same old problem of the people in charge having the skills to get and keep the job but not necessarily the skills to DO it.

[Zimme83]

Yea, who cares where the aircraft comes down,  they should have all bailed at 14,000 feet.  what an idiot.  I don't believe it had anything to do with them being manly men.  I think it had to do with the fact that they had positive control of the aircraft and enough time and help to work out things to ensure a safe return to earth without killing anyone on the ground.

Most likely, they found out that the plane was controllable enough to perform a safe landing, otherwise they would have ejected. 14.000ft gives you some time to figure things out before Terra Firma becomes too close. But im pretty sure that they had a lowest altitude, at which they would have ejected if the plane was not under control.

Planes and pilots are so expensive and hard to replace that you do everything you can to avoid accidents. It means that a good safety culture is needed where you can admit your mistakes so the lessons can be learned. When it takes several years and millions of $ to train a pilot you dont allow him to be an irresponsible daredevil. You make sure that he flies within the rules and limits, that his training allows him to recognize when he is about to end up in a bad situation and what to do. And finally you add safety systems to the aircraft that can assist the pilot when things go bad. Like in this case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkZGL7RQBVw

[Traveler]

If Normandy was invaded today...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSpUqxewBdg

The reality is that the invasion fleet would be nuked just after forming it's convoy.