Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Mathman on February 10, 2003, 02:04:29 PM
-
Which guy was the one to whine on channel 1 after this?
-
Russians discover a paint job does not the Blue Angels make.
Anyone know if that pilot made it out OK? Likes like a shot precariously close to the cockpit.
MiniD
-
If this is the incident I'm thinking of, I believe the pilot was able to eject and survived, but I don't recall the extent of his injuries.
-
Now we know why Russian ejection seats are the best. They test them at airshows around the world.
-
Both pilots were OK.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Now we know why Russian ejection seats are the best. They test them at airshows around the world.
Are you guys trolling for Boroda again? :D
-
out of curiosty, what plane is that?
-
They had a whole show about this on the discovery channel a week or so ago.
Short version, it involved clouds, radio channel being used by someone else (they couldnt communicate), they were getting close to the audience, and the guy on the bottom was below and in front of the guy he smashed into so he couldnt see him.
I would explain further but it really wasnt anyone fault per se and both pilots survived and noone was killed.
Mig-29's hawklore
-
Boy talk about poor SA and these guys have their licence!?!?!
-
Originally posted by narsus
I would explain further but it really wasnt anyone fault per se and both pilots survived and noone was killed.
What an increadible mistatement. Spreading the blame does not negate it. Any one of those conditions has caused flights to cancel out of airshows in the past.
MiniD
-
it happened during the flight, the pilot on the bottom followed airshow procedure and performed an emergency manuever, ok lets blame someone ok the helicopter taking off and using the wrong radio channel.
Happy, hope it makes you feel better
-
Actualy, its realy the russians trying out a new secreat weapon ;)
You know during WWII when they would use there props when outa ammo to tear up the rudder and elevators of the enemys plane? Just an evolved technic :p
-
Originally posted by narsus
it happened during the flight, the pilot on the bottom followed airshow procedure and performed an emergency manuever, ok lets blame someone ok the helicopter taking off and using the wrong radio channel.
Happy, hope it makes you feel better
Still doesn't make any sense... at least not according to what you said before. So.... let me make it clear to you, so you can understand what goes into airshow decisions:
Cloud Cover: If its low, you stay below it. If its too low, you don't do the show.
Radios: If your radio goes out, you progress out of the airshow area and come in with tower guidance. YOU DO NOT DO AN EMERGENCY MANEUVER.
Bad decisions were made and two planes collided. The fact that nobody was hurt (spectators) was based solely on luck... because common sense didn't show up that day.
I've worked the tower in too many airshows. I've listened to too much radio traffic on the subject. I've seen shows with low clouds that cause the low alt show, and cancelled a show. I've seen a show where a member of the team lost his radio...
"Nobody was at fault" :rolleyes:
MiniD
-
Perhaps you didn't understand my statement, I am at work and rushed typing this out.
Pilot A did not deliberately hit Pilot B, it was not due to russian equipment or malfunction. Pilot A the flight leader pulled up because and you can correct me if I am wrong, planes are no longer allowed to fly over the crowd. They are confined within a box of airspace dependent, on what kind of show is being performed.
Rather than put 300 people at risk he put himself,
what should he have done?
he was 5 seconds away from being over the crowd, no radio (someone else was talking on channel) and no visual of his wingman. You have been in a tower before you tell me.
Rolling your eyes is not necessary. Just ask for more info of what I was trying to say, automatically jumping down someones throat for an incomplete statement (by my own admission in the original post) is no reason to be hostile.
-
Firstly,
The rules change as far as designated corridors go. I have a tendancy to think they weren't necessarily that close to the crowd if their debris did not hit it.
The maneuver itself is what could easily be questioned. When you loose communications, nobody else knows it as soon as you do. Any violent maneuver should not be a result. Drifting into clearly visible space should be. Basically, darting into a blind spot was a bad decision.
When two aircraft with fully functioning flight controls collide, someone did something wrong.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by narsus
... and no visual of his wingman...
How would this be anything other than the pilots' involved fault?
-
I was there, Fairford 1993.
Pretty spectacular all round. Unfortunately I didn't have the camera up at that part of the display, The only pics I've got are of smoke and the chutes floating down.
Narsus almost has it although I do not remember them getting too near to the crowd at any time. The no.2 aircraft lost sight of the lead when he entered cloud. He evaded away from the crowd and during an attempt to rejoin the display collided with the lead aircraft, in a nutshell. I'm sure you could probably find more details on the web as my memory is pretty fuzzy - I was only 14 years old :)
short vid clip here (http://home.clara.net/dkeyadsl/videos/iat93mig29.rm) and another one here (http://www.buddyboys.net/movies/fairford.ram)
Gatso
-
Yeah, I can almost understand how it's hard to see another plane right above you when you've got a big old bubble canopy...
Did this guy ever hear of looking around? They may have been lost in the clouds at one point, but from the looks of that picture, by the time he went to pull up, there was plenty of visibility to go around.
-
Lots of armchair pilots here I see...
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Lots of armchair pilots here I see...
Yeah!
Agree.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Lots of armchair pilots here I see...
Fair enough. I'll assume that one was for me, since I was the last to suggest the pilot just might have had his head up his bellybutton when this happened. But having been up in jets with bubble canopies, I have a pretty good idea of how good the visibility is. But since I've only been in an F-15, not a Mig-29, I thought I'd look into it a little more.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mig29/ (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mig29/)
I was looking primarily at pictures of the cockpit, to see if it was somewhat comparable. Sure enough, it's a bubble canopy, designed to provide the pilot with the least interference to his field of vision possible. Had he looked left and up, he would have seen that other jet before pulling up into him.
Now, since I was not there and don't know everything that went on, I can't say whether he did see the other jet or not. I admit that I made a leap of faith in assuming that he did not, despite the blue skies around them in the picture. He very well might have seen the other jet and thought he was further away than he really was. In that case, his SA was piss poor and he's still at fault. And unless the Russian pilots do things very differently, I have trouble believing that their Lost Wingman/NORDO procedures involve executing an aggressive climb into unseen airspace.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Lots of armchair pilots here I see...
Everyone here is armchair everything.
You also fail to notice that the "armchair pilots" was a response... not the initial reaction.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by mjolnir
Fair enough. I'll assume that one was for me, since I was the last to suggest the pilot just might have had his head up his bellybutton when this happened.
Actually it was directed at all people posting in this thread about who made what misstakes without really knowing jack toejam about what they are talking about (hello AKDejaVu...er "MiniD").
If you look at the picture of the two jets, you will see that plane a is in a climb while plane b is flying level. This indicates that prior to the collision, plane a was lower and in front of plane b. That puts plane b roughly at plane a:s high 6-7. Try to look at your own high 6-7 in front of your computer right now. Now imagine doing it under stress, wearing a flight helmet while being strapped to an ejection seat.
-
I do know about airshows hortlund. I know alot more than most. I worked with a mobile control tower and we set up to do numerous airshows that included both the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds as well as demonstrations by individual units.
You see, it is you that is making the assumptions. You that is making the excuses. You that is ignoring the picture.
I never said the pilot did or did not see the other one. I will maintain that in the situation where you are flying in close proximity to other aircraft and you lose site of them, a 60 degree pitch-up angle may not be the best maneuver. It was a bad decision.
The fact that they were flying through clouds in close formation relying on visual contact during an airshow is also a bad decision.
Please... feel free to argue these points all you want. Just know that it will not be an argument based on anything remotely pertinant to the situation.
Demonstrations are canceled due to low flying clouds all the time for this very reason. I've also seen/heard situations where radio contact was lost. Violent maneuvers were never in the recovery plan.
Once again... this is being in the control tower during shows. Have you done this? Have you flown a fighter in an airshow? Please, think about who is and is not talking from experience before shooting off your mouth hortlund.
There were several bad decisions. You can clearly point to them.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Try to look at your own high 6-7 in front of your computer right now. Now imagine doing it under stress, wearing a flight helmet while being strapped to an ejection seat.
Actually...I have. Takes a little getting used to, but if these guys are show pilots, then I'm sure they're more than used to it. It really isn't as difficult as it sounds. Plus, they do have mirrors to help with that sort of thing.