Bud Holland's Low Pass at Yakima Range.
 

Hi All,

There is a really interesting thread running here in D&G part of which makes reference to Bud Holland's exploits in Czar 52. You guys may find it interesting, however, the purpose of this thread is to ask for some of the accumulated knowledge in this forum please.

I am looking for the whole video of Bud Holland's infamous low pass at the Yakima bombing range, where he cleared a ridge by (reportedly) 3 feet or so. I have seen it before on the net but after 3 hours of searching today I cannot relocate the darn thing.

There are hundreds of videos of the crash that killed him, the best of which is here, but I am looking for a complete video of the Yakima range pass...

Can anyone help?:}

Cheers All.

ABX

Also, to avoid getting a lecture on the search functions here at Proon :} I tried to search for "Bud Holland B52 Yakima Range" and various edits of similar words, with and without the quotation marks, and I kept getting this message:




I feel pretty sure that the topic would have been discussed at length here before... maybe my search technique needs refining?:*

Cheers.

Google is thy friend

This opens a video link where the ridge pass is shown. NB the filming stops as the ac reaches the ridge because the cameraman thought the plane was abouit to crash!

The pprune warning message is actually missleading as your request had 5 words therefore was over any 4 word limit. What is really means is your search term included a term with less than 4 letters. Both Bud and B52 disqualified your search although pprune does have some TLA and TN exceptions.

Danny explained that this was necessary to reduce the time of the search requests.

Search for "Holland+Yakima+Range": You'll get this thread:)

It throws its toys out of the pram for ANY word of less than 4 letters unless it is on the tiny exclusion list.

Which is, by the way a real pain in the ass when you're looking for info on Eos.... (although google for the search term you're after +pprune sometimes works!)

ABX,

Before you watch any of those videos, you might want to look here;

http://s92270093.onlinehome.us/CRM-D...e/darkblue.htm

It has been posted before, but the memory of those who died at the hands of this individual is better served by people fully understanding just how needless their sacrifice was, and not lending any credibility to his reckless and selfish acts.

G'day Two's,

Thanks mate, been a long time since I chatted with you here. Actually the link you posted is the very reason for this thread and my search for the videos. Down in the D&G forum we're discussing Bud and the breakdown of CRM and procedures etc, your link above was posted and I've been off in search of the videos that would make up the full picture.

BH seems to have totally lost the plot and while the videos of his antics are spectacular, they are mostly spectacular in their stupidity - as his final act shows.

As one poster commented on the D&G thread, the link you provided should be compulsory reading for all pilots, after reading it several times, I agree.

Cheers,

ABX

ABX
I think the low pass is on this clip.
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...bomber%202.wmv
I can't check it myself (work PC restrictions etc), Good luck.

And supervisors too. Having read the expose report published on the internet, one cannot help but marvel at the lackof supervision.

A good case study for the Flying Supervisors' course?

There is still such a thing, I presume?

Overconfidence + Supervision
 

In what Beagle (and I) fondly refer to as the olden days, good but overconfident pilots were usually sent for a first tour on something single seat. At a time when the RAF had hundreds of them and not that expensive, these young men either frightened themseves :mad:less and moved on or killed themselves and hopefully nobody on the ground. Obviously times have changed and close supervision is today's answer, something which seems to have been sadly lacking in the B 52 debacle.

Ummmm! Something the subject of a thread recently BEags. "Why does an aircraft lose speed in a turn." I suggest this an example of low and slow and in a turn and a stalling inside wing and all that goes with it. Bloody sad but def over confident.

RIP all on board.

Flying Supervisors Cse
 

Attended the Flying Supervisors Cse about 5 years ago and the Fairchild Crash was one of the case studies.
We also had to sit through a collection of flying indiscipline clips that were collected after the C130 South Cerney accident/incident - they were not good viewing for the Herc mates who were on the cse.

Course still running, and the whole sorry saga of Bud Holland is one of the key case studies (correct as at Apr 07).

Seem to remember that the lack of supervision stemmed from a succession of quick postings of Holland's superiors - the USAF apparently often moving people onwards and upwards after only six months or so in post. Therefore each instance of flying indiscipline was dealt with as a one-off, not just the latest in a long-running saga. From the case study, two things that struck me as particularly remarkable: one of the Sqn Cdrs decided not long before the crash to fly with Holland on each display/practice, apparently partly to encourage him to behave in the air and partly to save his junior pilots from unnecessary risk. This gallant man died in the crash. The other: many of the families at Fairchild used to go out for the afternoon when they knew that Holland was going to be practising a display, as they didn't want to be underneath the crash which many viewed as inevitable.:uhoh:

Pprune Mod
Why did you remove my reply to this thread?
It was valid, in context to Air Safety, and of interest to our audience
Bud Holland was an ars*hole and a disaster waiting to happen - he got away with cowboy flying for years by intimidating his juniors and seniors, and then took a lot of experienced people who believed in him into the ground - unfortunately, the supervisors who wrote him up, were not on that fateful flight

I can state quite categorically that NO post has been removed or deleted on this thread. I suggest you review where you might have posted it but it wasn't here.

PPP

Bouy15. Was that Bud Hollands fault or the supervisors fault.


Could it happen today?

19 May 1991

Fairchild Air Force Base held an airshow and Holland was aircraft commander of the exhibition. During the event, he exceeded the B-52's banking and pitch limits. He also flew directly over the crowd which is a violation of FAR (Federal Aviation Regulation) Part 91 policy. Though both his commanders were present and realized the violations, nothing was done.

12 July 1991


A change of command ceremony took place and Holland was aircraft commander. He performed the same maneuvers as he did during the air show except now he accomplished a "wingover", where the pilot rolls the aircraft onto its side and allows the nose of the aircraft to fall towards the Earth to regain speed. Damage can occur during this maneuver. This time his commanders realized this was setting a bad example for the younger B-52 crews, yet it is unknown whether Holland was punished.

17 May 1992

During the airshow Holland exceeded the recommended bank angles and performed a flyby down the runway. At the end of the pass he completed a high pitch angle climb, or pitch up, at about 60 degrees nose high, and leveled off with a wingover. Though it is known that Holland was verbally reprimanded, there is no documentation.

14 & 15 April 1993

This time Holland was mission commander of a two aircraft exercise to bomb ranges in the South Pacific. During an exercise named Global Power, Holland permitted his crew members to photograph his wingman at close visual formation, as well as allowing one of his crew to film live munitions being released from the B-52. Both acts disregarded regulations. During this episode, the leadership both encouraged and discouraged Holland to act in the way he did. There was no disciplinary action taken.

8 August 1993

Holland was the 1993 Fairchild B-52 exhibition commander. Banking and pitch angles were exceeded. Holland was able to fly the aircraft at nearly a 90 degree angle. By this time many younger pilots wished to emulate Holland. At least two incidents occurred where less experienced pilots attempted to imitate Holland with a pitch-up and a fly-by at 60 degrees, both were successful. Holland was not disciplined.

10 March 1994

This day Holland flew practice munitions to a range in Yakima. An authorized film crew recorded the event. He was taped flying within 30 feet of the ground and during another pass prompted the film crew to duck for cover. During one of these passes the aircraft would most likely have crashed if the co-pilot, Captain Eric Jones, had not intervened. After the mission Jones stated he would not fly again with Holland to the squadron commander, Lt Col Mark C. McGeehan, who then recommended Holland be grounded. Holland was never grounded and these events prompted McGeehan to make the decision restricting his crews from flying with Holland unless he was in the aircraft. Holland was upset by the fact that McGeehan had attempted to have him grounded. Holland verbally confronted McGeehan by stating he did not respect him as a man, commander, or pilot.

17 June 1994

Holland flew the practice route in his B-52 in preparation for the upcoming airshow. He exceeded pitch and bank restrictions. His commander witnessed the display and concluded it was all within Air Force parameters. During the briefing for the show a few days earlier Holland had stated that he would perform another wingover and no one objected. By this time Holland's actions had polarized the air crews, many refused to fly with him. Also, the B-52 Wing was being dismantled at Fairchild so this airshow may have been the last one.


Time and time again the same phrase is repeated. "Nothing was done".

Now I for one agree that Holland was a complete and utter...... BUT, I would hope that today someone would stand up and say STOP.

I thought the is a new trick. It isn't, just a longer string than

holland yakima range

no quotes no pluses

vecvechookattack
I venture to suggest that your hope will NOT be realised:(
Why so? Just look at the admiring comments which follow the various film clips of low flying and associated aerial stupidity which appear from time to time. There is a breed of flyer who will insist on ignoring all the tenets of commonsense and airmanship and indulge their exhibitionist streaks. Nothing new in this and it is not limited to the less skillful either.
It's not just supervisors who need to say STOP! The onus is equally on anyone who is aware of these practices; but the strength of character required to 'stand up and be counted' is beyond the majority of those involved in career aviation. I say this from a background of some 50-plus years in aviation and the loss of far too many friends and acquaintances from other people's idiocies. We are all wise AFTER the event but there are far too few who are prepared to be wise beforehand.:ugh:

I have witnessed in the past pilots who push the boundaries of an aircraft and their own ability. They have often ended in heap. Don Bullock, in an A26, was one such who defied the display director. He asked for an extra two minutes "why do you want an extra two minutes?" the display director asked. "So I can do a barrel roll at the end of my sequence" NO said the director again.

He did it anyway with 6 people on board, into the valley at Biggin Hill. Irresponsible, over confident and a plain old showoff. Holland and Bullock will be remembered for those. Sadly the people they kill get forgotten somehow.

ABX,
Sorry, i haven't checked the original thread, but a full case-study highlighting the failings in leadership surrounding the whole incident can be found here:

http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/p...e/darkblue.htm

(Sorry, can't get the link to work)

I think the case study is still used at Bentley Priory (if it's still there) on FSOC/FLAC/FSS-type course. It certainly used to be.

Uncle G :ok:

This is a smally w4ankers opinion. From all that I have read and seen it strikes me that Bud Holland saw himself as the Hero in a Dale Brown novel.

This does not strike me as the most professional way to fly an aircraft. The thing I cannot get over is the repeated warning bells that were just ignored..............

I would hope some of our colonists over the pond would be able to respond and say there is a system in place now to sort out this kind of behaviour.

YouTube - Spitfire Fly LOW over reporters head.

Cornish, in this particular case though it was the supervisory chain that failed, as a lot/most of Holland's peers/subordinates had already refused to fly with him! Surely that would make someone sit up and realise something is amiss?

There was yet another senior officer on this flight, in the jump seat i believe, i think he was an OC Ops equivalent or OC Stds. Anyway i am told by guys from Bud Hollands squadron that it was the guys last flight in the airforce and that his wife and kids were stood on the dispersal with a tray of champagne and glasses for 'Dad'. How tragic does it get? We must learn from Bud Holland, whether a junior pilot or a supervisor. Nobody up the chain had the bo****ks to say NO!

Tigs, the really scary thing is Bud Holland was "OC Stds"....

pba
absolutely right sir! I think therefore the Senior Officer in the Jump Seat that was on his last flight must have been OC Ops. Can anyone help?

Civobs
Great question. All i know is that many people on type said that he regularly flew the aircraft 'beyond limits'. Now that implies to me that checks should have been done, if they were or not, i have no idea.

Taken from one of the links on page 1.

Can someone explain that one ? What was the matter ? Thanks.




RAF pilot 'in deadly game of chicken' - News - The Independent

One of the C-130 community might like to answer this, but it was a fatal accident involving a C-130 and a soldier on the ground.

Chris, I read your unedited post. It was indeed sad.

Maybe it should not have been posted here, and indeed it would not have been had the aircraft not been too low.

According to this account he popped over 500 rivets on at least one occasion.

I imagine that the post flight inspection would have been expensive!

It does demonstrate that the UK's approach to Authorization levels and approvals, QHI/QFI check rides and standardization check rides make it harder for this type of behavior to happen (but not impossible). In this case, the individual was part of the Unit Standards set up, so stopping it was a case of everyone in the chain that let him get there having to admit that gross errors in judgement had been made, sadly face saving took a higher priority than life saving.

Two's in

excellent post. It's also worth considering that he was 47 years old, had been a military pilot for 23 years, and had over 5000 hours on the B-52. I have faith that had he shown "rogue" traits early in his career he would have been shown the door.

I believe there is a book called the "Rogue Pilot" which (amongst others) outlines Bud Holland and the remarkable lack of structure which allowed him to cowboy around for far too long.

Memory is faded, but I thought the right seater had refused to fly, so the senior sqd ldr (?) took his place.

A bit like the lear driver that barrel rolled (at alt) on his last flight before joining a major freight co. Split S'd (poorly), chewed up 20,000 odd feet, and bent the wings beyond repair. At least they lived.........

Y'all be safe now.

Excellent case study on Bud Holland and institutional failings here.

........and in posts #7 and #22..........................:ugh:

Hempy, perfect illustration that being as wary of a 5,000 hour pilot as a 500 hour pilot will keep you the right side of the pine box for longer, whoever you fly with. Reputations are no respecter of the laws of physics.

But if he had made the turn and subsequently retired then he would now be regarded as perhaps one of the finest B52 pilots. But how did he get it so wrong?