Army flying 1990 style
Snoopy was one of the best marketing/recruitment tools Army Aviation had back then, although I know the three Hueys dragging their skids in the Brisbane River in formation at Expo '88 had a few senior gentlemen a little nervous.
I bet you the current generation of risk managers are happy they don't have the horrific accident rate from back then as we'll....
707,F111, Nomads, Mirage,
I remember seeing a safety poster back then that had silhouettes of all the aircraft crashes and loss of life in a 10 year period that covered that time frame of just RAAF aircraft. Of all the safety posters I have seen, that is the one that sticks with me.
However I do like good fun flying!
707,F111, Nomads, Mirage,
I remember seeing a safety poster back then that had silhouettes of all the aircraft crashes and loss of life in a 10 year period that covered that time frame of just RAAF aircraft. Of all the safety posters I have seen, that is the one that sticks with me.
However I do like good fun flying!
Thread Starter
I bet you the current generation of risk managers are happy they don't have the horrific accident rate from back then as we'll....
707,F111, Nomads, Mirage,
I remember seeing a safety poster back then that had silhouettes of all the aircraft crashes and loss of life in a 10 year period that covered that time frame of just RAAF aircraft. Of all the safety posters I have seen, that is the one that sticks with me.
707,F111, Nomads, Mirage,
I remember seeing a safety poster back then that had silhouettes of all the aircraft crashes and loss of life in a 10 year period that covered that time frame of just RAAF aircraft. Of all the safety posters I have seen, that is the one that sticks with me.
I will let you argue the causes of various accidents. Except to say if you believe poor airmanship was the only cause of the 707 accident that would be a very simplistic summation.
A high flying rate isn't an excuse for the accident rate that was occurring in that time frame. I would agree with a older generation of aircraft may have an effect but that doesn't account for the number of people being killed at the time.
I can't find a copy of the poster, but if I do I will post it here.
A high flying rate isn't an excuse for the accident rate that was occurring in that time frame. I would agree with a older generation of aircraft may have an effect but that doesn't account for the number of people being killed at the time.
I can't find a copy of the poster, but if I do I will post it here.
That guy was impressive.
However, at night, large crowd all the way round, fast tight manoeuvres…what could possibly go wrong?
Even the Sea Kings. 10mm too close and its all over for 100's of people.
halas
However, at night, large crowd all the way round, fast tight manoeuvres…what could possibly go wrong?
Even the Sea Kings. 10mm too close and its all over for 100's of people.
halas
However, at night, large crowd all the way round, fast tight manoeuvres…what could possibly go wrong?
Thread Starter
Aussie Bob and 500N (that's not N for Nanny I hope!)
You're on the money. If you don't go to the edge then you don't know where the edge is used to be the order of the day and we loved it.
A fluffy pillow for all today combined with an excuse or six as to why..,,
You're on the money. If you don't go to the edge then you don't know where the edge is used to be the order of the day and we loved it.
A fluffy pillow for all today combined with an excuse or six as to why..,,
Yes, those were the days.
From the back ofFlying Safety Spotlight 1/80
1979 Major accidents caused
2fatalities
3 seriously injured
4 aircraft destroyed
2 Aircraft seriously damaged
Our statistics indicate there will be 3 fatalities and 8 major accidents in 1980.
I guess a few people missed the edge
If you want the stats google "Attitudes to safety and organisational culture in Australian Military Aviation" by B.T. Falconer. Page 30 has a sobering graph. I found it in my search for the elusive safety poster just now, never heard of it before.
From the back ofFlying Safety Spotlight 1/80
1979 Major accidents caused
2fatalities
3 seriously injured
4 aircraft destroyed
2 Aircraft seriously damaged
Our statistics indicate there will be 3 fatalities and 8 major accidents in 1980.
I guess a few people missed the edge
If you want the stats google "Attitudes to safety and organisational culture in Australian Military Aviation" by B.T. Falconer. Page 30 has a sobering graph. I found it in my search for the elusive safety poster just now, never heard of it before.
Last edited by ozbiggles; 20th Feb 2014 at 10:39.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sydney NSW
Age: 76
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for the video TBM-L!
I was there and was absolutely enthralled with the display. I recall saying to my wife something like "buggered if I know how this got approved, but it's fantastic"; then I answered my own query: "I suppose coz the military can do what they like; bet CASA would never let it happen".
The flying that Snoopy does is actually not terribly difficult or dangerous, and any experienced pilot should be able to fly those manouevres, but to put them all together, into that show, with such skill, was pretty special! On ya Snoopy!
Thanks for bringing it all back!
PS: To answer your question, no I don't think that anyone could condone that display today - because it involves aircraft; but if you're just driving cars and trucks around the arena at high speed, it's probably fine...
I was there and was absolutely enthralled with the display. I recall saying to my wife something like "buggered if I know how this got approved, but it's fantastic"; then I answered my own query: "I suppose coz the military can do what they like; bet CASA would never let it happen".
The flying that Snoopy does is actually not terribly difficult or dangerous, and any experienced pilot should be able to fly those manouevres, but to put them all together, into that show, with such skill, was pretty special! On ya Snoopy!
Thanks for bringing it all back!
PS: To answer your question, no I don't think that anyone could condone that display today - because it involves aircraft; but if you're just driving cars and trucks around the arena at high speed, it's probably fine...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBM
I'm the opposite end from the Nanny scale. I'm with Bob, prefer the risk.
"If you don't go to the edge then you don't know where the edge is used to be the order of the day and we loved it"
Been there, courtesy of Army and RAAF pilots flying and loadies, agree, loved every minute of it and we got away with some crazy things which would never be allowed today.
I wonder if they would allow it to be done outside with the Spectators
on one side only or maybe two sides ?
I'm the opposite end from the Nanny scale. I'm with Bob, prefer the risk.
"If you don't go to the edge then you don't know where the edge is used to be the order of the day and we loved it"
Been there, courtesy of Army and RAAF pilots flying and loadies, agree, loved every minute of it and we got away with some crazy things which would never be allowed today.
I wonder if they would allow it to be done outside with the Spectators
on one side only or maybe two sides ?
Would love to have been there. And believe me, like l said, that was impressive.
Have seen some amazing stuff like this in my life time like Sean Tucker knife edge his Bulldog Pitts at 3" down the runway in 1992.
However as l get older l see things a bit clearer (Optometrist does not agree).
In a bigger arena? Maybe.
Daytime? Maybe.
Little less closer to the ground? Maybe.
There is no Nanny-sate issue, just a regard for public safety.
Did everyone there know that was going to take place? Did they have to sign a disclaimer that if anything went wrong no one was liable?
I suspect the answer is no to both.
What a surprise when the show starts, and even better it all went to plan.
What was plan B?
I thought Sean Tucker would be dead now. But he his still doing knife edges at 3"
Good on him.
halas
Have seen some amazing stuff like this in my life time like Sean Tucker knife edge his Bulldog Pitts at 3" down the runway in 1992.
However as l get older l see things a bit clearer (Optometrist does not agree).
In a bigger arena? Maybe.
Daytime? Maybe.
Little less closer to the ground? Maybe.
There is no Nanny-sate issue, just a regard for public safety.
Did everyone there know that was going to take place? Did they have to sign a disclaimer that if anything went wrong no one was liable?
I suspect the answer is no to both.
What a surprise when the show starts, and even better it all went to plan.
What was plan B?
I thought Sean Tucker would be dead now. But he his still doing knife edges at 3"
Good on him.
halas
Yes, those were the days.
From the back ofFlying Safety Spotlight 1/80
1979 Major accidents caused
2fatalities
3 seriously injured
4 aircraft destroyed
2 Aircraft seriously damaged
Our statistics indicate there will be 3 fatalities and 8 major accidents in 1980.
From the back ofFlying Safety Spotlight 1/80
1979 Major accidents caused
2fatalities
3 seriously injured
4 aircraft destroyed
2 Aircraft seriously damaged
Our statistics indicate there will be 3 fatalities and 8 major accidents in 1980.
Last edited by Aussie Bob; 21st Feb 2014 at 07:38.
Its not so much that it is considered too 'unsafe' these days (there is an element of that), its more that the willingness by the ADF to justify the workup and practice overheads for the more complex displays isn't there any more in such a resource constrained environment.
Plus the admin and planning overhead required at the unit level to mount the 'safety case' is a pretty big burden and has to be squeezed into an already busy 'operational' (doing the real job) tempo.
Plus the admin and planning overhead required at the unit level to mount the 'safety case' is a pretty big burden and has to be squeezed into an already busy 'operational' (doing the real job) tempo.
Hang on a second, let's talk about being 'operational'.
In Korea and Vietnam we had a large-scale (for force size), tactical and strategic involvement. There was an enemy air threat, as well as ground threat. Our aircraft were in the thick of it, delivering on the two-way range. That has not been the case, for the most part, in Iraq ans Afghanistan. Only a small number of Chinooks have deployed and fought in-theatre. With one loss (not in action) and one fatality. I don't mean to take away from the Hornets and their very brief deployment to The Iraq war, nor the strategic transport and ISR guys and the good work they do, but they are not facing the same level of risk as in previous conflicts. That's why RAAF losses stand at zero.
Military flying is all about controlled risk. I understand that, in our increasingly litigious society, displays like this would not be permitted today. Prima facie the risks are too high. But high-risk activities are absolutely necessary in order to maintain aircrew skill and operational effectiveness. Obviously you don't want to put crews in dangerous situations for no training benefit, but the moment you let the health and safety Nazis take over, is the moment you cease to have an effective force.
You are correct ftrplt. Though it is a sad indictment that the current low operational tempo of our air assets has them stretched.
A good air display can do wonders for recruitment, and they look cool too
In Korea and Vietnam we had a large-scale (for force size), tactical and strategic involvement. There was an enemy air threat, as well as ground threat. Our aircraft were in the thick of it, delivering on the two-way range. That has not been the case, for the most part, in Iraq ans Afghanistan. Only a small number of Chinooks have deployed and fought in-theatre. With one loss (not in action) and one fatality. I don't mean to take away from the Hornets and their very brief deployment to The Iraq war, nor the strategic transport and ISR guys and the good work they do, but they are not facing the same level of risk as in previous conflicts. That's why RAAF losses stand at zero.
Military flying is all about controlled risk. I understand that, in our increasingly litigious society, displays like this would not be permitted today. Prima facie the risks are too high. But high-risk activities are absolutely necessary in order to maintain aircrew skill and operational effectiveness. Obviously you don't want to put crews in dangerous situations for no training benefit, but the moment you let the health and safety Nazis take over, is the moment you cease to have an effective force.
You are correct ftrplt. Though it is a sad indictment that the current low operational tempo of our air assets has them stretched.
A good air display can do wonders for recruitment, and they look cool too