Too Low FlyBy-- USAF T-38s
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"?
Will they plead "not gulity"?
Shame to get Baulauxed over 'That' …
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 423 Likes
on
223 Posts
I remember the good old days when a fly by like that was considered too high and too slow.
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Apocryphal maybe, or more likely; just too many intervening years combined with too many brandy sours and Keos.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't let you Zoomies have all the fun.
YouTube - The Craziest Low Pass Ever [French Chopper]
Cheers
YouTube - The Craziest Low Pass Ever [French Chopper]
Cheers
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK, mainly
Age: 39
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
though not many Authorisers (civil or military) will auth fun stuff 33' AGL...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: england
Age: 61
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.....
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.....
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The first town on the Thames
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
2 Posts
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
Last edited by Tigger_Too; 11th Jan 2011 at 09:48. Reason: thick fingers!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 423 Likes
on
223 Posts
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.. 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Back from the sandpit
Age: 63
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.