Too Low FlyBy-- USAF T-38s

[DelaneyT]

Air Force Times {U.S.}:

Air Force: Iowa game flyover was too low

Jan 6, 2011

The Air Force is considering disciplinary action against four pilots who participated in a T-38 stadium flyover before a University of Iowa football game in November 2010...


The 4 pilots {3 Majors & 1Lt), from the 71st Flying Training Wing, Vance AFB, Oklahoma... could face disciplinary action that includes Article 15 nonjudicial sanctions or an Article 32 hearing that could lead to a court martial...

Spectators posted videos of the event on You-Tube, and the pilots were later introduced during the game.

A review of video and Kinnick Stadium’s dimensions by The Associated Press found the jets flew at a fraction of the minimum altitude required before Iowa played Ohio State in Iowa City on Nov. 20.

Under Air Force regulations, the jets must have an altitude of at least 1,000 feet when flying over populated areas. The jets appeared to be slightly above the top of the press box, which is 137 feet above ground.

An Air Force spokesman stated that authorization was never granted to fly lower than 1,000 feet above the ground... that permission would require a waiver by the Federal Aviation Administration and special approval from Air Force officials.



71st Flying Training Wing (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/01/air-force-iowa-flyover-was-too-low-010611w/)

http://www.youtube.com/v/j8_QsRiaXAA

[moggiee]

1000' agl isn't a flypast - it's a medium level navex. You'd be hard pushed to see a T38 from that distance.

[stumpey]

Notoriously difficult to judge height from video/photos as it is from the instruments inside of cockpits!:p

In all of the excerpts listed, everyone is cheering/congratulatory not complaining/criticising. Whilst mass appreciation doesn't condone rule breaking or dangerous flying, I would suggest that any over vigorous chastisement of the pilots will do more to bring (Bugger cant think of the right word) to the Air force than any (Alleged) actions of the pilots!

More important, 4's out by a mile!:=

[Chronic Snoozer]

Air Force Times (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/12/ap-air-force-review-shows-pilots-were-barely-above-100-feet-121210/)The precise altitude of the jets is unknown
Difficult to convict on this basis.
Storm in a bowl, IMHO.
I think #4 is doing photo chase.

[moggiee]

stumpey: how about "disapprobation"?

[Navy_Adversary]

Very nice Flypast if you ask me.:ok:

[BEagle]

Probably in the 'naughty but nice' category....

No injuries / trauma / complaints received, so a swift kick up the bum for the leader might be sufficient. "Right, major, go away and bring me the details of the rules pertaining to the minimum routine height for overflying a crowd of spectators, plus the administrative action necessary to secure an exemption from such rules".

(Later) "Was such an exemption secured?"

(Assuming not) "Right, don't be such an utter ar$e in future. You are to arrange a full briefing for all pilots on this unit about the rules and will be off flying until you've delivered the brief which I will attend in person. Oh - and tell #4 that, unless he gets a grip when flying formation in public, he'll be posted to some rubber dog-**** hauling AMC outfit toot sweet! Now, f**k off out of here!"

[Krystal n chips]

Alas, BEagle, thou art wrong....regarding the trauma that is....;)

The gentleman at the end of this clip of said flypast appears to be in need of a tissue..or two....or a consultation with a therapist....:E

It doesn't seem to want to be an individual clip, but click on the fourth from the left clip.. when the clip below finishes and you will see what I mean.


http://www.youtube.com/v/j8_QsRiaXAA

[MrBernoulli]

BEagle,

Following said one-way interview the senior officer then finds himself on a harrassment charge, having being reported to the station Rights & Equality officer for having used the words 'rubber', '****', 'f**k' and 'sweet'. ;)

[L J R]

...but it was not as good as the F-111 'fly-past' of the USAF Academy in 1995.....I do so remember that.

[BEagle]

Well, the 71st Flying Training Wing overflight looked pretty tame compared to this US Navy effort:

YouTube - TCU at NAVY FLY BY! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLPC-4Mj3N8&feature=related)

[Pontius Navigator]

YouTube - Insane High Speed Low Passes in Jets (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia2OE2Amvj0&feature=related)

Watch the 3-ship in this video

[BEagle]

Just the usual yoof-tube assembly of well-known clips and hardly relevant to the thread topic concerning overflights of sports events by US military aircraft....:rolleyes:

[Chugalug2]

I am very impressed by the formation's timing, appearing just as the last notes of the National Anthem fade. As to the height, who knows? Probably a quite a quite natural misunderstanding whereby they overflew at 1000' altitude rather than height. Could happen to anyone M'Lord! In short a classic case of feather in the cap and black-eye. Case dismissed!

[Fareastdriver]

I would have thought that the USAF would have congratulated them for doing a fly past at the right place at the right time.

[BOAC]

If that is the 'stumpey' I think it is, "More important, 3's out by a mile!":D

[Pontius Navigator]

Just the usual yoof-tube assembly of well-known clips and hardly relevant to the thread topic concerning overflights of sports events by US military aircraft....:rolleyes:

Well, the 71st Flying Training Wing overflight looked pretty tame compared to this US Navy effort:

YouTube - TCU at NAVY FLY BY!

Pot black &

[DX Wombat]

Presumably somebody in an official capacity, somewhere had passed them the QFE for the area so it surely can't possibly be the pilots' fault if the passer of the message got it wrong. QFE for the Dead Sea (or in some cases the BOTTOM of the Dead Sea) can produce some nice displays. :E :E :oh:

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Navy Ad, and Beagle,


Just a point.

If you freeze at sec 9, there is a clear shot of the 'formation'

'If'' it's finger 4 its sh:te, if it's arrow, it's sh:te,.... baulaux, Gaud Knows what it is, but it's sh:ite...........

A bunch of IPs, 'avin a laff'. And , not doing it well.

However, from experience, I know the USAF never teach any kind of display skill flying to their pilots, at all. Which might explain why their rules are so tight (1000)' and the result so pi$$ poor.

Sorry Fellas (the poor T38 Guys), If you wanted a PAT on the back for LOW, get your SH!T in formation. End

Pity, IT WAS RUBBISH... and poorly flown. Shame to get Baulauxed over 'That'......... Now, 'Tommy' He knew how to do it!!!!

Advo

[Alber Ratman]

Wannabe Bud Hollands??

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Alber,

NO. I don't see a 'Bud' incident here.

I see a group of good guys, asked to do something they have NEVER been gently trained into. They didn't know what to do...... or more importantly, what NOT to do.

They don't know the HOW to do it bit. If they get nailed, it is partitially an inditment of the USAF's own training system.

Advo

[Alber Ratman]

Not to fly below 1000ft in a formation over a major population centre.. Pre flight briefing was missing a bit then. If they couldn't fly formation passes properly, why did they say they could do it? How many Majors in the formation? Too much can do instead of should do.

Will they plead "not gulity"?:E

[incubus]

It was undoubtedly more dangerous than not doing it ;)

[alf5071h]

Squadron senior pilots always advised me that if you are going to transgress – first knowing how and when, then it had better be a good flyby – worth the post-flight ‘discussion’.
I recall one such event; an unauthorized mixed formation, foreign airforce / airfield, low level fly-past / run and break.
The Boss, a wise and much respected gentleman (who was on the ground at the time) – “good fly-past, don’t do it again”; and within the manner of delivery, all was self evident.

[Brain Potter]

I don't think that any mitigation will be found in altimetry procedures. I expect that they would have been instructed to set the "Iowa City Altimeter xx.xx inches" (or perhaps Cedar Rapids). The term "QNH" is not used in North America because, in practical terms, the only option is flight level or altitude (with inches specified); QFE is not used.

I certainly wouldn't seek to raise this incident to the same level (forgive the pun) as the disastrous chain that led to the Fairchild B-52 crash, but all the same - how hard can it be to simply observe the authorized minimum height? Busting a limit by such a margin at a public event in the age of YouTube is just stupid. The USAF is still smarting from the C-17 Elemendorf crash (with obvious parallels in observing minimum height) and, if the truth is as it appears here, the guys involved may well regret for a long time the moment their horns came-out.

[ShyTorque]

I remember the good old days when a fly by like that was considered too high and too slow.

[Chronic Snoozer]

For Pete's sake there is some sanctimonious comment on the thread.

'spose noone here's been caught speeding either?

[newt]

Agree with you Chronic!! I suspect many of them have never done a flyby at any height!

It did not look dangerous to me and nowhere near as exciting as the 747 over the cricket ground!! And they had passengers on board:D

[Al R]

Going back 25 years now, I seem to remember AKR Sub Aqua Club talk of a Canberra splashing just off TPMH. Pilot was showing off to someone, went too low and got it wrong. We weren't allowed to dive on it because the seat was still armed.

Apocryphal maybe, or more likely; just too many intervening years combined with too many brandy sours and Keos.

[LowObservable]

The TCU one did look as though he was about one sneeze away from making NBC Nightly News, but it may have been the camera angle.

[Pontius Navigator]

Looking at several video clips it is obvious that the fly-by was planned and the crowd was waiting.

Once can guess the major issue was that the higher command did not know and on the 'no-surprises' basis was 100% cheesed off.

Same thing happened when Don Dale overflew the site of Donald Campbell's crash. It was reported on the BBC and the only offence was catching the brass unawares.

[Two's in]

It's the perennial problem of having Type A personalities operating in a tightly regulated environment. The regulations usually instill an innate knowledge of what's safe and what's not, but every now and then someone cocks it up and creates a smoking hole. A 4 ship flyby over a stadium at a fixed time should hardly be pushing anyone's envelope, (except for that Number 3 maybe) and relying on the lead not to take it down below floodlight height is a reasonable expectation.

The challenge comes when the height flown was below the Authorisation. Is a 100' drop from 1,000' dangerous? - of course not. Is a 200' drop from 500' dangerous? - well maybe. The point is that making arbitrary decisions about how much you can exceed your Authorisation is not good airmanship. The whole point of an Authorisation is that someone with the approriate level of experience (hopefully) and responsibility has weighed the risks of the sortie against your own skill and experience, and from that determined an MSD or AGL floor.

If you now decide to go below that limit you are deciding that your judgement is superior to that of the Authorisor, or in the case of the self-Auth, that the Authrorisation itself is a pointless exercise. I doubt that either of those positions will be supported at the subsequent BoI.

Far better to sit down with the Authoriser and explain why 400" AGL works better for the crowd and carries no more risk that 1,000' AGL. Explain how your experience, supervision, and flying skills make this a safe enterprise and get the Auth that supports it. That way at least he or she will be sat on the same side of the table as you if it all goes wrong.

Everyone jumps in with "This is all bolleaux, we know it's safe to do this at this height" but if that truly is the case, get it down on paper, don't just make it up on the day. If you have ever had the responsibility of being an Authorising Officer, your view on whether somebody wilfully exceeding the Auth you granted them may be different to those who regard challenging that breach of trust as "sanctimonious". Of course there are operational exceptions to this, but not for a football game flypast.

Whether you are constantly busting Auth's for a quick buzz, or making videos of yourself berating the ship's complement while in a shower cap, eventually your lack of good judgement will catch up with you or somebody. If you are going to do it, do it legally.

Qualified, Authorised, Supervised, Prepared.

[oldgrubber]

Can't let you Zoomies have all the fun.

YouTube - The Craziest Low Pass Ever [French Chopper] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-pzSWbyBI)

Cheers

[madlandrover]

Far better to sit down with the Authoriser and explain why 400" AGL works better for the crowd and carries no more risk that 1,000' AGL.

400" AGL works for me :E though not many Authorisers (civil or military) will auth fun stuff 33' AGL...

[VinRouge]

Doesnt Get lower than this....

YouTube - Mig 29 aircraft accident (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGtU_HWPIcc&feature=related)

[mr fish]

while on the subject of "low" flyby's,

if the harrier driver who scared the sh*t out of me at DONNINGTON motogp 2000 is online, can i point out that you owe me 2 pints of watery bitter.

i ended up wearing one, and a (VERY angry) mate copped the other!!!

pretty good though:ok:

[BEagle]

In 1989, I once porked up a fully authorised fly past limit, albeit not deliberately.

Authorised limit was 300ft MSD and we were to be called in to over fly the parade for a sunset lowering ceremony at the critical moment, which was to be within ± 30 sec of the briefed time. It was also my last trip before being posted.

The band cocked up and we had to sort out the timing to arrive 60 sec earlier than briefed. In all the blur of turning, accelerating and updating the ETA, somehow I forgot to change from RPS to QFE. As we approached the field, the late Keith Richards had managed to get the timing spot on, so power was at idle to slow down to the planned speed. "F*ck me", I thought, "this looks rather 'kin low". So I eased up a bit and over we went.

Elevation of the Officers Mess at Brize Norton must be around 300 ft - so a bit over 300ft on the RPS was indeed low and the VC10K didn't have a rad alt. I can still recall the image of 'Humper', our chap with a TCW radio on top of the mess who'd given us the call-in, ducking down as we went over.

Still, the crowd loved it. No-one saw or heard us coming until we appeared from nowhere behind the trees, the photographer didn't even get his lens cap off and the effect of a VC10 slipstream on a calm night caused the trees to start shaking in an eerie manner which caused gasps of astonishment. But the boss thought it was brilliant...

Shame that it was all because of an altimetry cock up.

People were still talking about it over 8 years later!

My log book simply says May 5 1989, VC10K2 ZA144, Sunset flypast ≈ 300' MSD.....:hmm:

[Tigger_Too]

Going back 25 years now, I seem to remember AKR Sub Aqua Club talk of a Canberra splashing just off TPMH. Pilot was showing off to someone, went too low and got it wrong

Nothing wrong with the low and fast bit. The problem was the high and slow bit that followed. Negative 'G' bunt with no recuperators equals a very quiet Canberra! Three seats; two occupied and used successfully; third one at the bottom of the Oggin.

[ShyTorque]

Didn't the short Irish bloke get posted back to Akrotiri as OC gliding club? Oh no, I forgot, he got a heli course instead.. :oh:

:E

[Top Bunk Tester]

Going back 25 years now, I seem to remember AKR Sub Aqua Club talk of a Canberra splashing just off TPMH. Pilot was showing off to someone, went too low and got it wrong. We weren't allowed to dive on it because the seat was still armed.

I speak as one who was there in 1981/2?. I was on lates on TASF and had missed the original State 1 tannoy (asleep) The fly past was for a wives club visit to the tower, they ended up getting a parachute display as well. The next tannoy went as I arrived at work asking for divers. I had my kit in the back of the car, although I wasn't a member of the AKTSAC (I seem to remember the DO was a dickhe4d) so I drove down to 10 Port. I was expecting a mass turn out of the AKTSAC ..... nobody, jus lil ol me. They asked if I could dive on the wreckage and being 1st line Q'd on the Canberra they were happy that I knew my way around the seats. I asked 'how deep?' they said '300ft' After I had picked myself up from the floor from laughing so hard, all I ended up doing was a rope dive onto one of their larger launches to saw off a hawser that they had wrapped around the prop after a panicked attempt to get out there quickly after the crash. Made a case of Keo out of it though.

[GreenKnight121]

And you didn't even ask them if they had the mixed-gas tanks ready, or if the decomp chamber was prepped for your post-ascent nap?

[Top Bunk Tester]

Strangley enough I used to service the Chamber at TPMH and Nicosia as well, it was part of the job at TASF.

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Beage's Wrote:

'In 1989, I once porked up a fully authorised fly past limit, albeit not deliberately.'

Mate, that is some story! I myself have been 'maxed out' having to both turn, and speed up. But then me and my course moved on to BFT......

Joking apart, you highlight a good point in my view: In that even the most experienced (and even in a multi cockpit environment) can lose the bigger picture, and forget some of the really basic stuff. I would be interested to know how the de-brief went, with regards to CRM? Fun-bus would have had 4 folks at least up front, so that was a failure of mainly 2 (Pilots), but also Nav and Eng?

Not aiming to fire shots, but the lesson might be that the 'Devil' that is 'Flypasts' can never be regarded as 'Standard' or 'Routine' for the Sqn Pilot/Crew. This should be also understood by Supervisors. Non of us 'NOT Reds', do it often enough to make it routine, and the angry little horns are all too easily let out.

As several posters have commented, good aircrew, often blow it on the most mundane 'FlyBy'.

I personally am certainly not Holier Than Tho, and have had my share of shockers. My earlier points, mostly related to the poor formation the guys flew. (Incidentally, I don't think what they did was at all dangerous, just shoddy.)

Fly Pasts are a task, in my view, which should be carefully planned by both crew and supervisor. By all means, let the youngsters out, and do them, but be sure of 2 things:

1. They Have a plan, and you have seen it!
2. They know that deviation from the plan is NOT an option, and lauditory reports of 50' 500Kts+ will not be defence!!.
3. Oh, and just as a tester, try this: "OK mate, all's going well, on time, on track etc then over crowd center you get...Bird/Fire/Flameout/ insert as req" see what answers you get (?).

It's often said, but mostly ignored: Assumption is the biggest problem.

Keep Safe Guys, Nurse says I have to lie down now.......



Advo

[Mal Drop]

RAFC Cranwell, December 1986. Hats of the graduation parade (being worn with chinstraps) scattered onto the ground by the blast from two F4s in reheat trying to clear CHOM roof. Also, the AOC's saluting dais being lifted a few feet at the front probably didn't do much for the crew who were met with hats on their recovery to base...

[blimey]

Oh for goodness sake

A 4 ship, not too tidy but ok, have a bit of a preplanned whizz a bit lower than was authorised. Straight and level at what was still a gentleman's height was no big deal, and the spectators seemed to enjoy it.

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Mal,

A True 'Gentleman Aviator' involved in that, was still flying many years later. And on a positive note, it provided the best bit of video to brighten up a rather grim Flying Supervisors Course! As I have said, mistakes can be made by anyone, but Fly Pasts seem historically, to be a bit of a catalyst.

Advo

[Il Duce]

Don't know what all the fuss is about -- more importantly the Iowa Hawkeyes lost the game 17 - 20!:{

[con-pilot]

The slowest SR-71 flyby.

Slowest SR 71 Flyby - El Camino Central Forum : Chevrolet El Camino Forums (http://www.elcaminocentral.com/showthread.php?t=38406)

[BEagle]

Why does some Spam always have to add something such as:
Thanks for that story JB, and most of all thank you for your service to our country...

It just so de trop:rolleyes:

[ShyTorque]

A True 'Gentleman Aviator' involved in that, was still flying many years later. And on a positive note, it provided the best bit of video to brighten up a rather grim Flying Supervisors Course! As I have said, mistakes can be made by anyone, but Fly Pasts seem historically, to be a bit of a catalyst.

"Tommy's" flypast..... not the best place and not in the best company to make a c**k-up as good as that one.... ;)

[Tankertrashnav]

Why does some Spam always have to add something such as:

Quote:
Thanks for that story JB, and most of all thank you for your service to our country...
It just so de trop:rolleyes: .


Nothing useful to say about the flypast, but I do so agree Beagle. I had a great 12 years, got paid pretty well, flew to loads of interesting places at The Queen's expense, and meanwhile felt sorry for my old schoolmates pushing pens in offices. I also had 6 months in a hot place where the locals were shooting and chucking grenades, but as we used to say, if you can't take a joke you shouldnt have joined up.

No thanks required for my service, and I certainly won't be standing and applauding guys in uniform at airports. I respect them, yes, but as Beagle says, overt expressions of this kind are just de trop.

[con-pilot]

Well, aren't you two little rays of sunshine.

[Rossian]

.....no Con, it's because we're Brits and we tend not to do this "in your face, hearts on sleeves stuff".

And, dare I say it, we (the posters you're referring to and I) are of an older generation who remember a time when footballers and cricketers didn't indulge in a quasi sexual celebration when they scored a point, a pat on the back and let's get on with the game.

This does NOT mean that we do not hold our currently serving military in the highest regard. We do; we're just less overtly demonstrative about it.

The Ancient Mariner

[awblain]

Unfortunately for the chaps in question and their lawyers, the videographer's position near the center of the field allows a good estimate of the height: about 98m x (speed / 300 m/s) x (time in sight / 4s) above the camera.

From the standard pitch size, the goal posts are 28.5 feet tall, and 180 feet away. Assuming the videographer is 5 feet tall, that puts the tops of the posts 7.4 degrees up from horizontal. The top of the stadium is about 25% higher in angle meaning the nose of the first aircraft becomes visible when it reaches 9.3 degrees above the horizon. From the geometry, this means that the plane is in sight for about 12.2 times its height above the camera. The plane is in sight for about 4s, which assuming a speed of 300 m/s (probably high) makes the height about 98 meters.

This scales linearly with both the assumed speed and time in sight, and depends a little bit on the exact position of camera, and height of the lip of the stadium, and the height of the pitch compared with local ground level.

[Two's in]

If there were a little more public pride and jingoism around the exploits and achievements of the Military, the UK might not be looking at quite the massacre of capability and manpower that it currently faces. This lack of acknowledgement and pride reaches and affects every voter and every politician. At least here in the US you aren't allowed to forget the sacrifice and contribution of the Military, and that will be a factor when the Government tries to cut it back. By all means if you're too embarrassed to publicly thank those that have made that sacrifice, why not just have that warm feeling inside, but remember that also like when pi$$ing yourself in black trousers, you're the only one that will ever notice.

[Tcraft41]

I have not seen any comments on the geography of the Iowa City area.

I really think they were much higher than they appear.

I attended the University of Iowa from 1960 - 1968, spent most of my work & school time at the University of Iowa Hospitals the next complex east of the stadium. The hospital and stadium sit up on an east west ridge line 300 ~ 400 feet above surrounding area that drops off to the north and south. at the base of the south drop off is the local airport. Approach to runway 18 is directly over the stadium / hospital complex. In the 60's the Gothic ~ 12 story tower of the hospital was what we used to line up a straight in on 18 as on approach you could not see the runway until you were south of the hospital tower. The drop off to the south to 18 was so steep that you were always about 300 feet above ground on the last mile and a half of approach.

36 takeoff were equally interesting, why is it that the engines always cough & sputter when you are trying to get over that large immovable object in front of you?

Many happy hours of flying time from IC in my log book and a few minutes of sheer terror

L

[glad rag]

The long version of the 2007 Orange bowl flyover (just so you can get into it!)

RcfoF4-mdUk&feature=related

[Tankertrashnav]

By all means if you're too embarrassed to publicly thank those that have made that sacrifice,


Have you never seen TV coverage of the Remembrance Sunday ceremonies in London and elsewhere? No embarrassment in expressing gratitude for sacrifice there, I would say. But I would see a world of difference between that and wanting to shake the hand of every squaddie who happens to be passing by in uniform and thanking everyone who has ever donned their country's uniform. As I said, I regard my own service as being well-rewarded already without others thanking me for it.

(H'mm, must remember that black trousers tip ;))

[26er]

Sunday 11 Oct 1964 and an ROC Day (remember Royal Observer Corps?) was held at Chivenor attended by various aircraft including many from training units. Flypast and aero displays and a good time was had by all. Chivenor was 229 OCU in those days.

12 Oct, and after met briefing departing pilots met in 2 Sqn crewroom for coffee and debrief on previous evenings shenanigans. Somebody said "lets have a formation flypast/departure" so a quick brief on positions to adopt and off we all went. The photo in my logbooks shows Phil Holden-Rushworth leading in a Spitfire followed by a Canberra (nav/rad trainer version with long pointy nose), Vampire T11 and Jet Provost on the Canberra's wings, myself in Meteor F8 with Gnat and Hunter F6 either side. Having done Chivenor Barnstaple was the next overfly and then somebody suggested we go to CFS at Little Rissington. Mike Hobson, OC Flying at Chivenor got of the phone to Rissy telling them to expect visitors so we did our thing there and then separated though several of us, myself included, landed at Rissy to refuel.

Don't suppose RAF could put together seven different types in one formation now and if they did would need an Air Marshall to authorise it!

[DelaneyT]

An Air Force pilot who led a group of jets on a spectacular flyover before a University of Iowa football game has been punished for flying too low and too fast, and is giving up his right to fly military aircraft, the U.S.Air Force said Wednesday...


{The USAF} Major was the flight leader when four Talon T-38 Trainer jets performed the flyover in front of 70,000 fans before Iowa hosted Ohio State at Kinnick Stadium on Nov. 20. The jets were at an altitude 16 feet above the press box, the stadium’s highest point, and cleared the scoreboard by just 58 feet, an Air Force investigation found.


Air Force: Pilot loses wings after low flyover - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-air-force-pilot-at-fault-for-flyover-032311/)



http://www.airforcetimes.com/xml/news/2011/03/ap-air-force-pilot-at-fault-for-flyover-032311/120310ap_air_force_iowa_flyover_800.JPG

[BEagle]

The Air Force found Kopacek violated rules by flying too fast during three practice runs and the actual flyover, flying too close to ground level above a congested area, failing to report the altitude and speed deviation from the flight plan to superiors and making a false statement during the investigation

3 practice runs just to fly straight and level over a pretty obvious target? All of which bust limits (pretty wimpish limits, but nonetheless still briefed limits)...

Failing to report flying too low and fast? Oh come on - I cannot really imagine anyone saying "Oh, woe is me. I did fly lower and faster than I should have, oh master. I am unworthy; please flog me, for 'tis all I deserve!".

But making a false statement during the investigation. There is a code....:=

[sycamore]

Looked good though,dinnit ?

[Alber Ratman]

Looked good.. but cost him his job.. Bit stupid to lie IMHO. Ego trip too far? :E

[Dimitris]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PF8A11AWTY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnzzgOQvjD8&feature=related

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Thank goodness I left before Youtube/every idiot having a video camera. It is the publicity that forces the senior ranks to act.

Especially grateful that Soviet warships didn't have video. Something about a 5 nm bubble? Sorry Sir, engineering graduate, 5 nm is 5 nanometres to me. Anyway, I was in close on my leader, and a bit higher, as briefed. Didn't really see much Sir. Best have a word with my Flight Commander Sir, he was 4 feet behind me.

Still have a photograph (remember those?) somewhere.

[EESDL]

I think everyone concerned has missed the really safety issue here......and all you jocks concerned about correct formation pretty patterns should be ashamed of yourselves.....
it is quite clear from the video that the band conductor is not wearing adequate Personal Protection Equipment whilst working at height!

[Shell Management]

This is another clear demonstration of the poor safety culture in the USAF, just like the C-17 crash in Alaska.

That none of the other pilots knocked off this stupid testorone trip reinforces that.

The fact the USAF has not looked at the poorleadership of the units just shows they continue to condone such excess.

[drewyoming]

Great post... right until you decided to throw monkus fecus at AMC and mobility crews. I haven't once heard of a 463L pallet loaded with vulcanized dog's leavings, but I'll keep an ear out...

Important to remember: a pilot's skill is not necessarily reflected by the type of aircraft they fly. To suggest otherwise is bovine scatology. Good day.

[BEagle]

Following in the traditions of the US being late for WW1 and WW2 (although they've since made up for that by starting wars themselves pretty well ever since...), I note that it has taken you 7 months to reply to a jocular post I made in January, drewyoming.

Do try to catch up, old chap.

[Trim Stab]

I wonder what German tax-payers think about seeing their pensions spent like that?

[Western coast]

"I note that it has taken you 7 months to reply to a jocular post I made in January, drewyoming"

Did you take note of his join date? C'mon Beag's.

[drewyoming]

Valid: yes that thing you said was from a long time ago. I figured somebody with 18000 posts would probably notice a reply...

Again: why the mud-slinging, back-handed remarks about Always Midnight Command? Do try to stay on target, jockey bloke.

[moggiee]

Have you never seen TV coverage of the Remembrance Sunday ceremonies in London and elsewhere? No embarrassment in expressing gratitude for sacrifice there, I would say. But I would see a world of difference between that and wanting to shake the hand of every squaddie who happens to be passing by in uniform and thanking everyone who has ever donned their country's uniform. As I said, I regard my own service as being well-rewarded already without others thanking me for it.
Indeed - the difference between "Class" and "Cheese"*


* By "Cheese" I mean some tasteless, processed, plastic muck made by Kraft (tm) of course rather than a nice bit of Wensleydale.

[BEagle]

Always Midnight Command?

Presumably MAC became AMC because too many people knew MAC as 'Might Arrive Command' following its earlier incarnation as MATS - 'Might Arrive Tomorrow Sometime'?

Enjoy your rubber dog$hit hauling!

[drewyoming]

Next time I fly a load of vulcanized dooty, I'll remember to enjoy it. Hey, speaking of Vulcanized, I did a little snooping around and figured out what you did for a living. What's it like spending all of that time practicing and never ever flying a real op? Must seem like kind of a waste of a life...

Then again, there were the oh-so-useful Black Buck raids on the Falklands, that cratered the runways and forced the Argentine C-130s to land on taxiways and off-airport... kind of funny how resourceful those dog**** haulers can be when the going gets bombed. Cheerio!

[BEagle]

What's it like spending all of that time practicing and never ever flying a real op? Must seem like kind of a waste of a life...

Ask one of your SAC colleagues - if you're brave enough!

[Al R]

Then again, there were the oh-so-useful Black Buck raids on the Falklands, that cratered the runways and forced the Argentine C-130s to land on taxiways and off-airport... kind of funny how resourceful those dog**** haulers can be when the going gets bombed. Cheerio!

.. wasn't one of the objectives to make the airfield unusable to enemy fast jets, in order to reduce their time over the fleet? Did I read somewhere that the Argentinians then tried to install some ancient arrestor wire system, with little success?

[Canadian Break]

Correctamundo

[con-pilot]

Ask one of your SAC colleagues - if you're brave enough!

Why don't you ask some of these SAC crew members? If you can.

Mac’s Facts no (http://www.nampows.org/B-52.html)

A total of 10 B-52s went down inside the borders of North Vietnam. 61 total crewmembers. 33 survivors became POWs and were released at the end of the war. 28 of the downed 61 warriors perished. (Information is listed above).



Sixteen other B52s went down outside of North Vietnam. Nine were due to combat. Seven were “operational losses,” which occurred while B52s were enroute to combat areas in Vietnam. (Information listed below).

[phil9560]

Don't get too carried away Con-the V-Force more than played their part.

And you Drewyoming-you've read one book so extend the experience and read a few more.

[con-pilot]

Don't get too carried away Con-the V-Force more than played their part.



Did any of the V-Force serve in combat in Viet Nam, or any other combat area for that matter?

Serious question as I really do not know and I had no intention of slighting the V-Force or any RAF unit. In fact, I greatly admire the RAF.

[drewyoming]

Remember my entire reason for getting an account to be on here was to ask that we don't cast stones at fellow drivers.

All respect to those that served and lost in the Falklands. Just wanted to make the point that every cockpit is a glass house, so keep your stones in your shorts where they belong. I don't think the Overlord, Market Garden, or Vittles fellas would take kindly to the rubber remarks...

Phil- can you suggest a good book on the Tin Triangle in combat? I've got an Amazon account and a credit card!

[phil9560]

Drew .No I can't suggest any books about the Vulcan in combat.Apart from THE book you've read:)

But the Vulcan was a deterrent,a capability and a symbol which served the UK well in the immediate post war decades and later.As were her crews.As such they served Western Europe and rest of the world admirably.

Granted they may have fared badly carpet bombing Vietnam.But that was never the plan.

And before I forget I'm aware of and acknowledge the enormous gratitude we owe all UK based US WW2 airmen.

[drewyoming]

Well played, sir. And I'd like to reciprocate the thanks- UK has been there with us through this decade of struggles... a time when there have been fewer and fewer friends.

I will never forget the time I got to see changing of the guards at Buckingham: inspiring!

[phil9560]

Check PM's drew

[SRENNAPS]

A good flypast and enormously enjoyed by the crowd. To the audience it brings respect and pride of those serving in the military. In a time when the majority of ordinary people in the western world are peeved off with the economy, lack of jobs, inflation, the banks, crime, bla bla, an event such as that flypast brings them hope and a belief that not all in the world has turned to ratpoo!

Was it dangerous? No way. For those guys, it was no more dangerous than you or I driving down the M4 on a quiet Sunday morning at 60 mph.

Unfortunately the perception of any air display is that if it is loud, low and fast and looks dangerous, then it must be dangerous. When incidents such as this display occur and they are caught on camera, the press over react and sensationalise it, leadership is forced to over react and the rules become more and more stringent and tightly enforced. And sadly people loose there careers because they try to do something special for an audience that wants and craves it.

Yes there is a risk that something could go wrong and I am fully aware of the occasions when it has gone wrong. But hey! I am a great believer in the old “I could step outside my house and get run over by a bus” mentality.

I also think that some of those here that have condemned the incident (using the rulebook as the excuse) are just jealous that they have never had the opportunity to have done it themselves.

Although not a pilot, having spent 30 years in, I have had the honour and privilege of seeing some truly amazing flypasts and that includes Tonkas, Tombs, Vulcans, Jags, Harriers and even a Shack & VC10. Even though I did not have a camera with me in the majority of occasions, I remember them like yesterday. The biggest kick I get these days is stood on the farmers’ field overlooking the RIAT, watching F16s, Tonkas, Typhoons, etc, etc, screaming 50 foot above my motorhome in full burner. Can’t beat it:D:D With respect to the risk I mentioned earlier, I stand more chance of being killed, driving home on the Monday morning after RIAT, by one of the thousands of lunatics we have on the roads.

Finally:

It did not look dangerous to me and nowhere near as exciting as the 747 over the cricket ground!! And they had passengers on board

Are you referring to the 747 South African World Cup incident or is there something I have missed.

Rugby Worldcup Flyover.session-01.mp4 - YouTube


After the very sad news about the Red Arrows today, I considered removing this post. However, having thought about it long and hard, I believe that the pilots I knew when I was on Sqns, would want the show to go on.
My thoughts go to the family and friends of the pilot. A huge loss and you died doing what you love to do.

[Tankertrashnav]

Did any of the V-Force serve in combat in Viet Nam, or any other combat area for that matter?


Ref V Force bombing ops, if we are talking about the V Force, not just Vulcans, the force was involved in conventional bombing at an early stage in its existence, with 4 squadrons of Valiants operating from Malta and attacking targets in Egypt during the ill-fated Suez campaign in 1956.

After that I would suggest that one of the reasons that, Op Black Buck aside, the V-Force never saw "active" service in the sense of actually going and dropping bombs on targets was that for the period they were operational (late 1950's to 1980s) the governments of this country were able to operate a defence policy which was primarily concerned with the security of the UK, and not getting involved in useless unwinnable wars around the globe. Certainly there were trouble spots in the former Empire, but these were primarily "policing" actions, with air warfare being restricted to a tactical rather than strategic nature (air attacks on terrorist positions in Malaya, Aden etc). Had Blair been PM in the 1960s on the other hand who knows how many bombing missions we'd have seen the three Vs flying on?

Having played a small role in the V Force I am delighted that all my flights were "practices" - otherwise it's highly likely that none of us would be around to have this discussion.

By the way, Con, never mind the Vulcan with its lightweight conventional bombload, this would have been the one for the job :ok:

Google Images (http://www.google.com/imgres?q=handley+page+victor+bomber&hl=en&sa=G&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=O9hATN6d77VLvM:&imgrefurl=http://www.nationalcoldwarexhibition.org/explore/aircraft-information.cfm%253Faircraft%253DHandley%252520Page%252520Vi ctor%252520K2%2526topic%253DData&docid=aQDPwC7OyOpB5M&w=800&h=467&ei=YM5PTpXwI4Pb4QSUwN3SBw&zoom=1&biw=873&bih=571&iact=rc&dur=125&page=3&tbnh=135&tbnw=193&start=21&ndsp=8&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:21&tx=153&ty=74)