Top Gear - Citabria crash
 

I'm surprised to not see any comments on here yet about last night's Top Gear, which showed a Citabria, LN-RAR, attempting to land on a frozen lake which had been cleared of snow by a snow-plow which had been made by the presenters - and apparently crashing in the process.

I don't really feel very qualified to comment on it, since I've never flown on skis, nor on unprepared ground. My observations, though, were that all was not quite as it seems. As the aircraft touched down, the prop appeared to stop - which surely isn't normal practice? Then there was a shot of the presenters, followed by another shot of the aircraft, with its engine running again, going over some admitedly very bumpy ground but apparently under control. Another shot of the presenters, then the aircraft sliding, out of control but very slow, into a snow-bank, but again with the prop stationary.

What are other people's views on this? Was it completely staged? I'd be curious to know the views of people with experience on skis.....

FFF
--------------

Not flown on skis, but most of TopGear is 'completely staged' - entertaining, but liberal doses of artisitc licence are emplyed.

Agreed. James May said, after the clip was shown, "I know we're often accused of faking things, but you can't fake a plane crash." I'm sceptical....!

FFF
-------------

FFF, like you I watched in bewilderment and thought there was something didn't add up, even for it to be staged.

I struggle to understand how it could be staged in an hour long BBC entertainment programme. Hollywood Blockbuster, maybe?

There were elements that did seem staged, the crew casually getting out?

It left me questioning who picks up the tab for any checks on the aircraft, injury to the flight crew etc.

I would like to see the contract covering it.

:)
 

staged or not staged.. either way it made me chuckle!

It served its purpose as a comedy moment:}

g'nite folks!:ok:

Guys, with my knowledge and experience in television production, I can tell you that it would definately be staged and not as it appeared to be. There is no way in the world that a tv production would do, or be allowed to participate in an action that would compromise air safety in the way that appeared to happen. If you were the participating pilot as shown, would you attempt to land on any runway surface apparently prepared by the presenting trio without a full pre flight inspection? I thought not!

Indeed Meldrew, but then I wouldn't have landed on the 'runway' they did land on had I inspected it. I can't see how they could anticipate how the aircraft would respond hitting the ruts as it did? No doubt it was staged, it is the degree of staging versus risk level, I question.

My biggest disappointment with Top Gear was the Cessna 182 vs Bugatti Veyron race across Europe. It was a very poor and wildly inaccurate reflection on GA. Complete nonsense.

Waste of License Fee
 

You realise they are banned from entering the USA..yes? Reason: law enforcement did not have enough staff to ensure the peace was kept.
Shame the EUR does not do similar..this crew are a liability to society. The little guy almost killed himself, total liability...then he tries to repay the air ambulance that saved his life by doing ONE free programme. They are a total pain in the butt.

I agree that the degree of staging is what we are discussing here. the only actual touch down shot that I recall could have been a touch and go as they cut away from the shot quite quickly, when you saw the aircraft on the ground after that, it was a shot of a low speed taxi, and then a shot of it apparently veering left into a snow bank. All easily accomplished with care and creative editing. The tongue in cheek nature of Top Gear, so far as aviation is concerned, can be winessed in a previous series when a runaway airship "supposedly" piloted by James May, ran amok in the vicinity of Norwich airport! I speak by the way as a huge fan of the show in general. James May as a PPL himself, is obviously keen to involve aviation in the show from time to time.

I believe the reason "Top Gear" was 'banned' from filming in the USA was because they had visa's, work and filming permits which allowed them to film for 'documentary purposes'. The American authorities subsequently deemed that the show was not a documentary - but entertainment - and that the visas and permits had been incorrectly/disingenuously obtained.

I assume that their problems have now been resolved and, in any case, there is now an American version of "Top Gear" which must give them some sort of exchange programme!

And that was discussed on here at great length, with people on the inside confirming that this was indeed staged, and with great professionalism too.

I agree; it was a stupid stunt and a great wasted opportunity to help GA. If May really has a PPL he could have done much much more than a stupid demeaning stunt like that which made GA pilots look like a bunch of incompetent d*ckheads.

I hardly watch it nowadays because it is just a comedy.

Yep, just good fun, if not as good as the last series. I too dont watch it very often these days.

As to the flying - those that know, know it is staged and those that dont probably dont care anyway and are totally clueless about what light aircraft or any other aircraft for that matter do.

More worrying for me are those on this forum who actually think it wasnt staged. :)

I disagree with Jambone. We are all ambassadors for our activity, and already most members of the public regard it as a hobby for a few spoilt rich kids. This is reflected in hostile attitudes from NIMBYs, planners, etc. So, and notwithstanding the inaccuracy of this perception, I would not support some programme which denigrates GA.

That Cessna v. Veyron stunt should have shown the Cessna wiping the Veyron off the map, by several hours.

I can tell you no one is standing round the watercoolers of the nation discussing the wording of their letters of complaint to any passing aviation authority.

Some of you people scarily cannot tell the difference between a comedy show & a perilous adventure. There are some achingly straight faces around this place. I advise a pill, a long walk in the country & turning off the tv more often. Ambassadors my hairy backside!:rolleyes:

IO540

Yes, I sort of agree with you.

However, a little bit of me says everyone knows the car always wins, even the plebs. In fact a friend of mine who is mad keen on motorsports, and races his car, commented that it was totally unrealistic albeit knowing nothing about GA. As to a few spoilt rich kids - well I suppose from some peoples perspective that is entirely true - lets face it very few of us use GA for any really useful purpose (unless of course you consider the typical burger run - useful ;)).

That said May does indeed have a PPL and does fly regularly. It would have done no harm to give GA a small plug and in that regard an opportunity was missed.

Still all good fun. At least Clarkson tells it how it is when it comes to some of the battery cars which very few other people seem prepared to admit.

Complete horsefeathers.

Having done a bit of touring in that very 182, I can confirm that it invariably needs to stop every 30 minutes for replenishment of pie supplies, to the extent that the autopilot tends to head for the nearest eating establishment regardless of what heading is selected.

That being said, I suspect if you put TheGorrilla in a Veyron, you might have much the same effect.

I have never seen such a bunch of straight laced humourless people in my life.......:rolleyes:

So if James May is a PPL holder and was paid for his appearance in the Cessna/Veyron 'race', and thus to fly, I wonder how that squares with the terms of his licence? Unless, of course, he's a CPL holder? :confused:

Just a thought..