Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: cpxxx on August 26, 2011, 05:49:15 AM
-
Check out this scary video set to beautiful music. It happened in South Africa. Watch as the aircraft departs just as the tandem gets in the door. It's sort of horrifying but set to music quite poetic too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jVKuFHXrHs&feature=share
-
:O
-
damn....just...wow. had to be a fun ride in the plane while it lasted :banana:
-
Wow, that was amazing.
The pilot obviously doesn't play AH2...we all know to recover, push stick forward and apply opposite rudder. ;)
I got a chuckle out of something in the text at the end of the video...
"If the loadmaster / jumpmaster / senior jumper leaves without saying anything or is gone when you look around then I strongly suggest you leave as well..."
-
Time for that guy to find a new line of work.
-
lol Pilot involved will be receiving more training.
-
The pilot/pilots must be idiots -- OR they were intentionally spinning the airplane -- oh wait, that brings us back to the idiot part. The guy in the right seat is wearing a uniform -- wonder if he's checking out the left seat guy? Right seat guy has a firm grip of the glare shield.
Anyone notice they were holding full up elevator long into the spin? Check at around the 3:50 point, there is a couple of frames showing the end of the stab/elevator.
Great shot of the camera guy in the back staring at his altimeter.
Was standing on the step of a Cessna one time when the pilot stalled the airplane, interesting ride until he recovered. :D
-
Elevator was not down, lons were into the spin, and rudder looked to be neutral.
It looked to me like an accidental stall/spin was turned into a teaching opportunity by the instructor who was in the right seat or that spin would have been recovered right away.
I'm not sure the right seat guy knew they still had skydivers still on board until he glanced back.
I like how the last skydiver out gestured "wtf" and was obviously asking them if they had things under control before he left.
-
The pilot/pilots must be idiots -- OR they were intentionally spinning the airplane -- oh wait, that brings us back to the idiot part. The guy in the right seat is wearing a uniform -- wonder if he's checking out the left seat guy? Right seat guy has a firm grip of the glare shield.
Anyone notice they were holding full up elevator long into the spin? Check at around the 3:50 point, there is a couple of frames showing the end of the stab/elevator.
Yeah, kinda my thought process also. Intentionally spinning an aircraft with skydivers in the back and the door open has the option for all kinds of bad things to happen, not to mention a gross lack of judgement on the part of both pilots.
-
intentional spin with the sky and aircraft full of skydivers. they should both have their tickets pulled. I hope one of the sky divers explained to them his displeasure upon their safe landing.
-
intense! I like how the sky diver in the yellow looked pretty calm :P Good stuff. :P
-
damn....just...wow. had to be a fun ride in the plane while it lasted :banana:
more like a stomach twisting, head screwing ride. :O
-
Sounds like fun, lol.
-
Wow, that was amazing.
The pilot obviously doesn't play AH2...we all know to recover, push stick forward and apply opposite rudder. ;)
I don't know the specific about the AL-60, but some aircraft are very hard if not next to impossible to recover. So forward stick, opposite rudder, & cut throttle might be a general procedure that works most of the time, in some aircraft you will have very hard time getting out of a spin, might even have to jump.
-
I wonder too was it a characteristic of the Atlas Kudu in terms of the delayed spin recovery, that one seems to be a turbine conversion which might have altered the characteristics. But lack of currency with spins might have been a factor. Later in the video, not does there appear to be some up elevator, I think I can see up aileron on the inside wing. Any aileron input would only exacerbate the situation. I have practised plenty of spins over the years but not all pilots now days are even allowed by their Instructors to carry out a spin. On that point I don't think the uniformed guy is an Instructor, just some pilot along for the ride. I often have visiting pilots beside me. Airline Captains sometimes.
I would guess the spin happened because he was a bit slow but stable only for the cameraman hanging on door and the tandem moving rearward to induce some yaw and add a bit of rearward CofG and wham, departure. I often have to correct yaw when a big guy gets out and hangs on.
The closest I came to that when early on in my diverdriving career. My bird all but stalled when all the skydivers rushed the door after I'd let it get a teeny bit slow. There was a lot of wing waving but I controlled it. Lesson learned.
-
During the exterior shots, none of the controls were set for spin recovery but rather the perfect setup to extend the spin event.
-
Just watched this again...the pilot sucks. He can't blame this on CG change, drag from floaters, etc. As soon as the rear floater (the camera guy) climbs out the airplane starts rolling right. He was just way too friggen slow.
Stupid pilots suck.
-
I remember a jump where we were at around 300 AGL and out of runway when he left engine caught fire. The jump door was open and the flames were rolling right by. Too low to jump and no warning gave us a scary few minutes. Thankfully we made it back to the runway with the good engine after the pilot went through extinguishing procedures. I was seriously considering taking my chances at 300 AGL and hope I had some lift in the canopy before impact!
-
The 152 in game recovers better from that flat spin if you pull up instead of pushing down.
-
That guy needs to stick to computer flying. That will prevent him from killing anyone.
-
The 152 in game recovers better from that flat spin if you pull up instead of pushing down.
I once actually spun a 152 from 10k to 4k, actually not once but four or five times, once inverted. Oh wait we're talking Ta 152 are we, not Cessna 152. :uhoh
Maybe that flight model needs changing!
-
They all looked calm to me. It might have started on accident but looks like they continued it for awhile on purpose. But what do I know. :joystick: :joystick: :joystick: :airplane:
-
Cool video aside from the fruity euro-disco music.
-
I agree the pilots looked in control the entire time. It was stupid, but I dont think at any point they lost control.
-
I agree the pilots looked in control the entire time. It was stupid, but I dont think at any point they lost control.
If the spin while jumpers were climbing out was intentional he should have his ticket yanked -- real good way to kill people as they exit a spinning aircraft. If it wasn't intentional he lost control.
-
I didnt even think of the jumpers getting whacked.
I agree, if it was intentional he should have his ticket yanked.
-
I don't want to be defending or accusing the pilots after only watching the video. Perhaps the spin was planned? Sure it's not the safest idea but it's possible that the jumpers requested it for some reason.
-
I don't want to be defending or accusing the pilots after only watching the video. Perhaps the spin was planned? Sure it's not the safest idea but it's possible that the jumpers requested it for some reason.
Really? Because the "jumpers requested it"? I've had jumpers request that I climb through an overcast, drop them through an overcast, fly when winds were outside limits, put an "extra" jumper onboard, etc. As PIC you make ALL decisions regarding safety of flight regardless who might "request" something.
-
If you watch the vid all the way through the "credits" at the end say the pilot was given additional training in spin recognition/recovery. Sounds like it was not intentional.
-
I don't want to be defending or accusing the pilots after only watching the video. Perhaps the spin was planned? Sure it's not the safest idea but it's possible that the jumpers requested it for some reason.
If it was planned, it was with no regard to his passenger's safety, a basic core responsibility of any PIC.....not to mention piss poor judgement or lack there of.
-
Really? Because the "jumpers requested it"? I've had jumpers request that I climb through an overcast, drop them through an overcast, fly when winds were outside limits, put an "extra" jumper onboard, etc. As PIC you make ALL decisions regarding safety of flight regardless who might "request" something.
Sure the odds of that are low, but I don't know if we can blame the pilot for accidently spinning it. Maybe it was a problem with his decision making.
If you watch the vid all the way through the "credits" at the end say the pilot was given additional training in spin recognition/recovery. Sounds like it was not intentional.
Did not get to that part. Perhaps your right.
-
I don't know if we can blame the pilot for accidently spinning it.
Who could you blame other than the pilot? If not a problem with his decision making it was certainly a problem with his inability to maintain control of the aircraft. There simply is no excuse for stalling/spinning an airplane.
-
Who could you blame other than the pilot? If not a problem with his decision making it was certainly a problem with his inability to maintain control of the aircraft. There simply is no excuse for stalling/spinning an airplane.
I'm not blaming anyone, I'm saying that we only saw it from the jumper's point of view. Perhaps there was a structural damage. My point it we can't just be saying "the pilot is an idiot and that's it". I'm 99% sure that it was the pilot's fault (especially looking at the picture bellow), but we just don't know enough to blame him.
(http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/7053/89327854.jpg)
One is looking back & the other one is holding the glare-shield, great!
-
Is it at all possible that the spin was completely unintentional, but the slow recovery was entirely intentional?
If you're spinning, and divers are flying off your ship in every direction, and free falling near you, what do you do?
I'm not a pilot, and I'm not even a good PC pilot, but it occurs to me that in that situation, you might not want to recover until your SA is perfect and you've picked your spot to extend. :headscratch:
Any thoughts?
-
Is it at all possible that the spin was completely unintentional, but the slow recovery was entirely intentional?
If you're spinning, and divers are flying off your ship in every direction, and free falling near you, what do you do?
I'm not a pilot, and I'm not even a good PC pilot, but it occurs to me that in that situation, you might not want to recover until your SA is perfect and you've picked your spot to extend. :headscratch:
Any thoughts?
It's possible.
If that would happen to me I'd recover from the spin but still keep it pointing down, and pull up as soon as I'm clear. A human falls at 120kts (I think) and a lot slower when they pull the chute, so either way it would not take long to clear. Just got to make sure not to overspeed and rip the wings off.
-
That spin was intentional. Everyone it's relaxed, red shirt is looking back to check whose's left onboard, uniform guy is sipping his moccachiano, ju its looking at the alti waiting. Judging by the nose low attitude, surely is no CG induced flat spin, and even dorkface 101 would have ben out of that spin right away if he wanted to.
They are trying to cover their butt saying it was unintentional incase someone decides to go on a crusade an report them. (if there's a rule against spining and droping skydivers? Except the reckless operation one)
BTW, I personaly witnessed a skydive operation where the pilot spins his way down with the divers, and thats in a C402 ... And off course the 7000fpm dive in a Pilatus. :)
-
I don't know if you've flown skydivers Frenchy but I do and in my opinion in no way was it intentional, you can clearly see the aircraft began to spin literally as the tandem was sitting in the door. They were lucky to get away without hitting part of the aircraft. That was really dangerous. If I did that I would be ex skydive pilot immediately after landing. If it was intentional then he went too early. One of the issues with skydive flying is that you have to keep it slow but not so slow that the CG changes as everyone heads for the door or he airflow changes that happens when some hang on the outside can stall you. If you don't get it right there is often a lot of forward pressure to keep the nose from pitching up even then your airspeed can bleed away so you need to add power. That looks like what happened there. He was too slow to start with and as the airspeed went away he tried to keep the nose level. But with a bunch of guys messing with his airflow and CG, a wing dropped and he departed. Also even if the continued spin was intentional maintaining it with skydivers on board is really irresponsible. The risk of one hitting the tail on departure is very high.
I would think the delay in recovery was caused by a combination of the aircraft characteristics and possibly the pilot's inexperience with spins. Many modern pilots have done very few spins and many are scared of them.
The other skydivers were calm but that's often because they're not sure what's going on. Having a parachute or two does allow to take measured view of what's happening to the aircraft you're on. I had a similar issue lately when I had an engine problem and I ordered the solos out. One went but the other two closed the door after him. I had to get quite excited with them to get the message across, finally and reluctantly they got out. Also notice that the the third jumper in the door had a flapping reserve handle. That was pointed out to him, fixing that delayed the others. I would say that it was only later that the jumpers realised how big the problem was.
No I do think it was accidental.
-
I hear you, and respect your experience, but the pilot with the bar codes is not even remotely trying to recover. Doesn't look agitated at all, doesn't start barking at the PF. Makes me really believe it was planed.
I have a couple of 1000 hours as flight instructor/training cpt and crew operation, and I never witnessed someone NOT getting excited when something starts to get wrong. At the very least someones points at something/talks. But I could be wrong.
-
Yup, it seriously looks like it was a planned spin to follow the divers through their fall after they jumped and have more jumpers jump off the airplane to join them. The pilot didn't look exited at all and seemed like this was definitely not his first time doing this. The most dangerous part is not the spin itself if the plane can recover easily, its the overspeed danger while leveling out after the recover.
But I have to agree its dangerous jumping off a spinning airplane but if the pilot was okay with filming everything, its might be because he knows he is allowed to do it legally and thus, marginally safe I suppose.
Heck, I wouldn't mind to be either the pilot or the jumpers. But please don't tell my mom... :noid
-
No seriously I think he lost it. As a skydive pilot you keep in mind you don't want to harm or even scare skydivers. They are quick to hang you. You are there to facilitate them. If you do something stupid, they will know. A lot of them know exactly what's what.
He lost it. I speak as a current skydive pilot. Really I don't want to criticise other pilots but he lost it.
-
One thing for sure, if it is a jump I Jumpmaster and a spin occurs, intentional or not, there is going to be some serious post-jump investigations and FAA interactions. There is absolutely no excuse for having a jumper exit without a stable platform and without the aircraft continuing on a good glide-path away from the jumpers. I have seen too often mishaps at the door on stable runs let alone unstable ones. If this was intentional then there is absolutely no way that pilot gets a free ride to ever do that again. That being said, I hope that the spin was a mistake and the pilot gets all the extra training necessary before ever carrying jumpers again. It is fortunate that no one was injured, the sky, even more so than the water, is unforgiving of even the smallest mistakes.
-
Seems we might have to find that sub-sub-chapter in the FAA regulations precisely talking about wreckless flying in skydive planes. I don't have time now but I'm willing to take a look at it.
-
Seems we might have to find that sub-sub-chapter in the FAA regulations precisely talking about wreckless flying in skydive planes. I don't have time now but I'm willing to take a look at it.
It happened in Africa, FAA's rules do not apply.
-
It happened in Africa, FAA's rules do not apply.
Well I'm going to Africa right away then! :banana:
-
Well I'm going to Africa right away then! :banana:
That's not exactly what I meant.
-
Seems we might have to find that sub-sub-chapter in the FAA regulations precisely talking about wreckless flying in skydive planes. I don't have time now but I'm willing to take a look at it.
This is why there are so many FAA regulations; bone head moves like this guy made, whether intentional or not. No amount of regulation is ever going to prevent poor judgement and lack of common sense.
-
Early on, when they were setting up the skydive operation. This was before I joined. They had a Cessna 182 and brought in a Commercial pilot to fly for them. He climbed with the stall warning chirping away. At some point he turned to avoid a cloud. Thus setting up the classic incipient spin scenario. The 182 duly obliged and I think they lost 3000 feet in the spin before he got it back. At this point he started to climb again but the guys in the back had had enough and asked to jump out there and then.
He was asked to leave on the spot. In any case no one was willing to fly with him again. It's incredible to think that someone with a Commercial licence should have such poor flying skills that he thought climbing with the stall warning blaring away was OK.
-
A commercial license is really not much, wit10h 300ish you are still unexperienced. And so are you after 1000h of flight instructing. You should see tyre 1500h cfi we hire as right seater on the Metro, they go from God's gift to aviation to I'm going to drive a truck instead in 1H.
Off course, it's a gross generalization with a hint of sarcazum. :old:
-
True but you have wonder at stuff that even student pilots should know. You're right about experience. I'va about seven hundred hours skydive flying. Maybe another three hundred should see me getting the hang of it! :joystick:
You should see tyre 1500h cfi we hire as right seater on the Metro, they go from God's gift to aviation to I'm going to drive a truck instead in 1H.
Well the Metro has a bit of rep, you may be aware of a Metro that flipped inverted on landing at Cork Airport earlier this year. An inexperienced Captain paired with a right seater who only had about 350 hours and was three weeks into the job. The new guy was flying that day. Not good.
-
*Takes note: if ever a sky diveing pilot, never execute arobatics or stalls with paying customer(s) onboard - contrary to popular belief, skydivers only like jumping out of perfectly safe and sound flying aircraft being competently flown.
-
*Takes note: if ever a sky diveing pilot, never execute arobatics or stalls with paying customer(s) onboard - contrary to popular belief, skydivers only like jumping out of perfectly safe and sound flying aircraft being competently flown.
:aok So true, I've had enuf close calls jumping from a stable platform (all my fault). I would not want to Safety or J/M in a situation like this, the potential for disaster is huge.
-
Yup, it seriously looks like it was a planned spin to follow the divers through their fall after they jumped and have more jumpers jump off the airplane to join them. The pilot didn't look exited at all and seemed like this was definitely not his first time doing this. The most dangerous part is not the spin itself if the plane can recover easily, its the overspeed danger while leveling out after the recover.
But I have to agree its dangerous jumping off a spinning airplane but if the pilot was okay with filming everything, its might be because he knows he is allowed to do it legally and thus, marginally safe I suppose.
Heck, I wouldn't mind to be either the pilot or the jumpers. But please don't tell my mom... :noid
It is illegal by every FAA or ICA rule that I know of. First if it was a planed and executed spin. That is a basic aerobatic maneuver.
• conducting aerobatic maneuvers is not permitted with passengers.
• Aerobatic flight in a parachute area is not permitted.
-
• conducting aerobatic maneuvers is not permitted with passengers.
In the U.S. aerobatics are legal with passengers. If it wasn't it would be really hard to take someone up for an acro ride. In the US if you have a passenger both you and the passengers must wear an approved parachute.
-
In the U.S. aerobatics are legal with passengers. If it wasn't it would be really hard to take someone up for an acro ride. In the US if you have a passenger both you and the passengers must wear an approved parachute.
Any Instructor can instruct and give instruction in aerobatics , and yes, both must be wearing approved parachutes, but every one receiving instructions must have fully functional controls. That means no more then one passenger. read the regs.
-
Any Instructor can instruct and give instruction in aerobatics , and yes, both must be wearing approved parachutes, but every one receiving instructions must have fully functional controls. That means no more then one passenger. read the regs.
Whose regulations are you referring to and cite your source because that isn't correct. You absolutely may perform aerobatics with passengers, without giving them instruction, without them having a set of controls and without being a CFI in the first place. Each occupant will require a parachute subject to normal parachute repacking procedures.
There are 4+ seat aerobatic airplanes out there.
-
Any Instructor can instruct and give instruction in aerobatics , and yes, both must be wearing approved parachutes, but every one receiving instructions must have fully functional controls. That means no more then one passenger. read the regs.
Please quote the FAR that prohibits aerobatics with passengers.
-
Any Instructor can instruct and give instruction in aerobatics , and yes, both must be wearing approved parachutes, but every one receiving instructions must have fully functional controls. That means no more then one passenger. read the regs.
I think you combined and confused the regulations for spins without parachutes and regulations for aerobatics with passengers.
Your thinking about §91.307(c) and §91.307(d)(1), take a took at §91.303.
§91.303 — Aerobatic flight.
No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight—
(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
(b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
(c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
(d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
(e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
(f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.
[Doc. No. 18834, 54 FR 34308, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91–227, 56 FR 65661, Dec. 17, 1991]
It says nothing about receiving flight instruction, having controls, or having passengers.
read the regs.
;)
-
Someone should tell Bob Hoover:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp2Uc9XvmjY&feature=related
-
I think you combined and confused the regulations for spins without parachutes and regulations for aerobatics with passengers.
Your thinking about §91.307(c) and §91.307(d)(1), take a took at §91.303.
It says nothing about receiving flight instruction, having controls, or having passengers.
;)
You are correct.
Someone should tell Bob Hoover:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp2Uc9XvmjY&feature=related
Watch the film again and listen to who the passengers were in the back of a aircraft, perhaps a demo flight being given by Bob Hoover, it’s sometime between January 1960 and September 1965, That’s when EUGENE M. ZUCKERT, was SECAF. Hoover was a pitchman for Rockwell Aviation and test pilot. I’m sure it was a military demo flight, not subject to FAA regs.
Notice that the camera in the video presented while Bob performs the reenactment is a video mounted in the aircraft, there is no passengers in the aircraft in which he performs his reenactment.
-
If you watch the vid all the way through the "credits" at the end say the pilot was given additional training in spin recognition/recovery. Sounds like it was not intentional.
took almost the end of the second page before someone mentioned it says it was not intentional. Can any of yall read? Explains it at the end of the video, pilot's run in was to slow and the plane stalled.
-
took almost the end of the second page before someone mentioned it says it was not intentional. Can any of yall read? Explains it at the end of the video, pilot's run in was to slow and the plane stalled.
What else was he going to say, I intentionally did it? That would have cost him much more then some additional training time.
-
Watch the film again and listen to who the passengers were in the back of a aircraft, perhaps a demo flight being given by Bob Hoover, it’s sometime between January 1960 and September 1965, That’s when EUGENE M. ZUCKERT, was SECAF. Hoover was a pitchman for Rockwell Aviation and test pilot. I’m sure it was a military demo flight, not subject to FAA regs.
Notice that the camera in the video presented while Bob performs the reenactment is a video mounted in the aircraft, there is no passengers in the aircraft in which he performs his reenactment.
Take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE)
This guy is a civilian, on a non aerobatic airplane with another civilian on board (who is not a pilot).
-
took almost the end of the second page before someone mentioned it says it was not intentional. Can any of yall read? Explains it at the end of the video, pilot's run in was to slow and the plane stalled.
If the youtube video says it's not intentional does not mean anything. I'm not saying it is intentional, but I'm not going to agree that it was un-intentional until they post a video of the pilot saying it.
-
Tex Johnston is a really bad example of how to do things right if that's what you're trying to do.
I have about a hundred hours in a Focke Wulf 149D. It's unique in that it allows up to 4 occupants to wear either backpack or seat cushion type parachutes while being aerobatic with each and every seat occupied and could be loaded perfectly happily to do so. I sure wasn't giving instruction to the passengers in the back seats. At the time I didn't have a CFI so I wasn't giving instruction to the passenger sitting in front. Very much legal, thanks.
You'll find that most purpose built aerobatic airplanes have 1 or 2 seats. The Marchetti SF260 has an option for a third. There are aerobatic models of Bonanzas though I've never flown them and don't know their limitations for being loaded for aerobatics so whether or not they can practically carry passengers (for CG or whatever other reasons) I can't say but they have up to 6 seats.
A passenger in the front seat of a Pitts doesn't need to be receiving instruction to sit there. Nor an Extra, nor an Eagle, nor an RV, nor an Acro Sport, etc. etc. etc. I didn't need to be giving instruction to other pilot in a Yak 52/52TW to go upside down. I didn't need to be receiving it either. I didn't need to be a certificated pilot for that matter.
Shrug.
-
Tex Johnston is a really bad example of how to do things right if that's what you're trying to do.
I'm not sure if I understand what your saying. Do you mean he's a bad pilot?
-
I'm not sure if I understand what your saying. Do you mean he's a bad pilot?
Nope. Just that he isn't a good example of how to do things right.
-
Nope. Just that he isn't a good example of how to do things right.
Ah, well I'm just giving Traveler a substitute for cpxxx's example.
I don't really know much about the guy, just that he had the guts and skill to roll a 707. Technically it's not that hard, I've done it on a Decathlon but I don't see myself ever doing that on something like a 707, it leaves you absolutely no room for error.
-
Take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE)
This guy is a civilian, on a non aerobatic airplane with another civilian on board (who is not a pilot).
Not sure what you point is, I don't know what the regulations were in 1950 for aerobatic flight. The 707 prototype was developed in 1949 or 50 entered production in 53 and world wide operations in 54 I think. The largest buyer was the airlines , but also the military. Johnson was a former US Army aircore test pilot that left the airforce and joined Boing as a Test pilot. The whole idea in a test flight is to push the envelope that's how they learn the limits of the aircrafe. They help write the book. If you trying to show that areobatics are performed with passagners in the back and that it a normal occurance well I think you need to find video that is not 60 years old.
-
Not sure what you point is, I don't know what the regulations were in 1950 for aerobatic flight. The 707 prototype was developed in 1949 or 50 entered production in 53 and world wide operations in 54 I think. The largest buyer was the airlines , but also the military. Johnson was a former US Army aircore test pilot that left the airforce and joined Boing as a Test pilot. The whole idea in a test flight is to push the envelope that's how they learn the limits of the aircrafe. They help write the book. If you trying to show that areobatics are performed with passagners in the back and that it a normal occurance well I think you need to find video that is not 60 years old.
I never said that it's a normal occurrence, my point is that there is nothing that says that you can't do that (at least in the FAR). And him being former US military does not allow him to disregard the FAR.
-
I never said that it's a normal occurrence, my point is that there is nothing that says that you can't do that (at least in the FAR). And him being former US military does not allow him to disregard the FAR.
FAR's were very different back in the 50's, but Test pilots that performed demo's for military did so in military airspace and within military airspace FAA or back then, CAA rules do not apply. If he was doing a military demo.
-
FAR's were very different back in the 50's, but Test pilots that performed demo's for military did so in military airspace and within military airspace FAA or back then, CAA rules do not apply. If he was doing a military demo.
He was flying a civilian aircraft as a civilian test pilot. There is no such thing as military airspace, as long as your in US airspace you have to follow the FAA's rules.
I don't understand what your trying to prove, are you still saying that you can't do aerobatics with passengers or what?
-
He was flying a civilian aircraft as a civilian test pilot. There is no such thing as military airspace, as long as your in US airspace you have to follow the FAA's rules.
I don't understand what your trying to prove, are you still saying that you can't do aerobatics with passengers orHe was flying a civilian aircraft as a civilian test pilot. There is no such thing as military airspace, as long as your in US airspace you have to follow the FAA's rules.
I don't understand what your trying to prove, are you still saying that you can't do aerobatics with passengers or what?
Yes, there is military airspace. From the video, can it be determined what type of airspace he was flying in at the time?
-
There are Military Operation Areas and there are Restricted Areas used primarily for military training (not always aviation related -- think artillery range) but these are just part of the airspace system in the US -- they are not "military airspace". The rules governing these areas are the FARs, not military regs. The military doesn't own the airspace.
-
In the technical sense, correct. Although, some of the military's restricted areas are not open to civilian traffic. What the military does within those areas is not necessarily in compliance with FARs due to operational requirements.
-
They are open to civilian traffic with center's authorization, typically when inactive.
-
Not all of them.
-
Not all of them.
Prohibited airspace is the only type of airspace that you can not get clearance into. But military still does not own it and I have never heard of a case where military was doing airshows in Prohibited airspace.
-
Often in Europe the military does own the airspace so to speak. Civilian traffic has to route around it. I had some trouble during the summer when Obama and the Queen were due to visit. (Not at the same time). The military were holding intercept exercises, even though we don't have jet fighters or military radar :airplane: :rolleyes: We drop inside a a military exercise area which is rarely open. But this time, I took off and ATC told me to call mil radar, even thought there is no military radar :huh. They wouldn't let me above FL70 and then told me I couldn't fly at all for the next hour or two.
My boss wasn't having that. He started making phone calls right up to the base commander, threatening to go further up chain of command. Ten minutes later, he told me 'You've got your clearance!' :aok
I wasn't sure initially and on the first flight, I half expected to look out and see a grey PC9 sitting on my wing!
-
Prohibited airspace is the only type of airspace that you can not get clearance into. But military still does not own it and I have never heard of a case where military was doing airshows in Prohibited airspace.
I've attended several Armed Forces Day air shows at the high speed test track facility near Holloman AFB, well inside the restricted airspace. Those were always great air shows and included a low level (aproximately 200 ft agl) supersonic fighter fly by.
The discussion about who "owns" what can go on all day. But, the reality of it is, the military dictates when the airspace is open or closed. I understand the national airspace system. But, since the military controls use of restricted airspace it gives them "ownership" in a practical sense. :salute
-
I've attended several Armed Forces Day air shows at the high speed test track facility near Holloman AFB, well inside the restricted airspace. Those were always great air shows and included a low level (aproximately 200 ft agl) supersonic fighter fly by.
The discussion about who "owns" what can go on all day. But, the reality of it is, the military dictates when the airspace is open or closed. I understand the national airspace system. But, since the military controls use of restricted airspace it gives them "ownership" in a practical sense. :salute
Civilian aircraft are allowed in the restricted airspace, prohibited airspace is the only airspace that you are never allowed to fly in.
-
Often in Europe the military does own the airspace so to speak. Civilian traffic has to route around it. I had some trouble during the summer when Obama and the Queen were due to visit. (Not at the same time). The military were holding intercept exercises, even though we don't have jet fighters or military radar :airplane: :rolleyes: We drop inside a a military exercise area which is rarely open. But this time, I took off and ATC told me to call mil radar, even thought there is no military radar :huh. They wouldn't let me above FL70 and then told me I couldn't fly at all for the next hour or two.
My boss wasn't having that. He started making phone calls right up to the base commander, threatening to go further up chain of command. Ten minutes later, he told me 'You've got your clearance!' :aok
I wasn't sure initially and on the first flight, I half expected to look out and see a grey PC9 sitting on my wing!
Well if they told you that you got clearance you should be good. I know a guy who recently flew over Edwards AFB in a civilian aircraft, was really surprised that he got the clearance.
-
You see that's America. You can overfly LAX or Edwards in a C150, at least I assume you still can. That won't work if you want to overfly London Heathrow!
-
Oh hell no that's an bellybutton whipping when they landed :mad:
-
You see that's America. You can overfly LAX or Edwards in a C150, at least I assume you still can. That won't work if you want to overfly London Heathrow!
I doubt you can overfly LAX, too much traffic. But then again I never flown in LA.
-
I doubt you can overfly LAX, too much traffic. But then again I never flown in LA.
Take a look at the LAX terminal area chart.
http://skyvector.com/?ll=33.94108896932946,-118.41162144423404&chart=114&zoom=1
http://skyvector.com/?ll=33.99665980275527,-119.69369107997085&chart=114&zoom=3
If you don't want to smack into an airliner, the best place to do that is right over the runways at 3500' and up.
-
Take a look at the LAX terminal area chart.
http://skyvector.com/?ll=33.94108896932946,-118.41162144423404&chart=114&zoom=1
http://skyvector.com/?ll=33.99665980275527,-119.69369107997085&chart=114&zoom=3
If you don't want to smack into an airliner, the best place to do that is right over the runways at 3500' and up.
I guess I should have looked at it before posting. :bhead
-
ATL and JFK you'll get the same routing if you're putting about. Here's JFK from around 4000' before we were able to get higher (I don't remember exactly the altitude that night)
(http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff345/martinguitarist/07241f13.jpg)
Landing in Lantana, FL from the north it was customary to pass over the PBI VOR if IFR or over the numbers/midfield/as instructed while you were heading south because being directly over the runway keeps you out of the way.
-
ATL and JFK you'll get the same routing if you're putting about. Here's JFK from around 4000' before we were able to get higher (I don't remember exactly the altitude that night)
(http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff345/martinguitarist/07241f13.jpg)
Landing in Lantana, FL from the north it was customary to pass over the PBI VOR if IFR or over the numbers/midfield/as instructed while you were heading south because being directly over the runway keeps you out of the way.
Yeah I'm familiar with what they typically let you do, I used to do a lot of flying around New York's bravo airports.
-
Civilian aircraft are allowed in the restricted airspace, prohibited airspace is the only airspace that you are never allowed to fly in.
Good point on "P" vs "R" airspace. Regardless, access is when the military allows it, hence, "ownership". :salute
-
Good point on "P" vs "R" airspace. Regardless, access is when the military allows it, hence, "ownership". :salute
You have a point. I'm not sure if I agree with it, but from a certain point of view you are right.
-
In comparison, another way to look at it would be like a mortgage holder and the home owner. The mortgage holder legally holds the deed, while the home owner has the keys, manages use of the home, controls who comes into the house, and locks it to restrict access at will. :D
-
All depends on how you look at it.
No matter what kind of airspace it is if something happens the military will be doing the intercepting and shooting down if need be, so they are the only ones who are capable of physically enforcing the rules. In which case you can say that military own all the airspace.
You want to just end this discussion? It's really going nowhere. I think we both agreed who the airspace officially belongs to, everything else is just BS.
-
This argument is dumb.
-
No argument intended here.......end of transmission. :rolleyes: