Navy Pilots Lose Wings Permenently For Low Flying

[Uraniun235]

The RAF now uses a lot of "show of force" flybys to disorient Taliban positions in A'stan. Flying 50 metres off the deck at Mach 1 with full reheat is enough to ruin your day and give the boots on the ground chance to return fire.

I remember reading about a B-1 doing that too, I wish I could have seen that from a comfortable distance.

[Broomstick]

sub-1000ft F-111 overflights of the BRISBANE FUCKING CBD when the river is lined by 500,000 people for the annual riverfire display fuckers.

What's your point, numbnuts? Looks to me like that airplane was overflying the river, not the crowd.

[Shroom Man 777]

Also, it was not a spur of the moment thing and was probably meticulously planned by the military, with the pilots involved following a very specific set of instructions for their maneuvers with little margin of error - like how formation flying aerobatics teams drill themselves to fly with each other in absolute microsecond and millimeter precision.

So, yeah, even if the macho volleyball-playing Australian pilot was macho and played volleyball, if he voluntarily defied the mission orders and chose to deviate from the planned course, I think he would also get his butt chewed and I don't think he would become TOPGUN. I think he'll crash and burn instead... IN MY ASS.

EDIT:

Here is a graph illustrating my point.

[aerius]

Note that the Thunderbird pilot, despite training specific to low-flying aerobatics, and being officially tasked to make a split-S, made a simple mathematical error and permanently lost his slot on the team. Note, too that he had NOT been flying over an audience, precisely so that if such an accident occurred no bystanders would be at risk. Thunderbirds and Blue Angels plan their exhibitions so that if someone loses an airplane the most likely outcome is for the machine to careen away from people on the ground. You don't get a second chance to crash $20 million in hardware.

It's not just jets and it's not just aerial performance teams... I've been going to local airshows for at least a decade in the US and I've never seen any aircraft ever flying directly over any part of the crowd. No matter if it's a prop plane, helicopters or a jet, they have designated performance areas well away from the crowds (areas that are off-limits to the public and fenced-off). Aerobatic maneuvers are pretty much restricted to a line parallel with the crowd, never towards.

Weird, this doesn't seem to be the case with the Toronto airshow where many of the planes flew right over my head, if they didn't I wouldn't have these pictures. I wish I had a video of the Thunderbirds demo from the early 2000's where one of the planes accidentally boomed the crowd from under 1000' directly overhead. They do all the head-on passes, loops, and other more dangerous stuff out over the lake, but the Snowbirds & other demo teams always make passes directly over the crowd going towards the lake and back onto land.

[FSTargetDrone]

Weird, this doesn't seem to be the case with the Toronto airshow where many of the planes flew right over my head, if they didn't I wouldn't have these pictures. I wish I had a video of the Thunderbirds demo from the early 2000's where one of the planes accidentally boomed the crowd from under 1000' directly overhead. They do all the head-on passes, loops, and other more dangerous stuff out over the lake, but the Snowbirds & other demo teams always make passes directly over the crowd going towards the lake and back onto land.

Maybe things were different at other shows, but I've seen the Blue Angels twice and the Thunderbirds twice at 2 different locations and I don't remember any crowd overflights. Perhaps they do make such overflights of the crowd in other places, but it could be that the orientation of the showline/crowd (being different at different airports) at those particular locations prevented that, along with other particulars. Demonstration teams require the layout of the airport and orientation of the runways, showlines and other features before performing at any show.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

So wait... a single photo at an unverifiable angle where the planes are at an unverifiable height and an unverifiable distance from the crowd somehow proves that the Blue Angels, the most popular and likely the most tightly regulated air show is breaking any number of safety regulations concerning distances from crowds? How do we know the jets were flying directly overhead? It sure as hell doesn't look like it in the photo, though the photo provides so little information it's hard to tell even what angle it was taken at. Perhaps they merely banked so it appeared as an overflight, or perhaps it was, but performed at an acceptable height. Really, that photo doesn't prove jack shit.

Since we're at a war with personal anecdotes here: I use to live within a mile of a decommissioned air force base in Nevada, and saw a number of Blue Angels shows there. Never once did I see any direct crowd overflies. Sure, a number of seemingly close ones, but the thing is from the position of someone in a crowd, with jets flying relatively nearby at high speeds, it's really hard to tell exactly where they are in anything but the most general of terms.

[aerius]

Thunderbirds sneak pass Right over the crowd.

Snowbirds line abreast (fastforward to 9:15) Right over the crowd.

Maybe things were different at other shows, but I've seen the Blue Angels twice and the Thunderbirds twice at 2 different locations and I don't remember any crowd overflights. Perhaps they do make such overflights of the crowd in other places, but it could be that the orientation of the showline/crowd (being different at different airports) at those particular locations prevented that, along with other particulars.

The Toronto airshow is down by the shoreline of Lake Ontario, the planes fly 100-200M offshore over the lake when they're doing their stunts and most of their other stuff. The Snowbirds always make a pass over the crowd going inland to end their show, usually this is done in the line abreast formation but they've also done it with a starburst one year. During the show they'll have some planes joining up in formation over the city, then flying out to the lake over the crowd. The crowd, by the way, stretches out over quite a few miles on the shoreline, all the way from Humber Bay Park on the west end all the way down to the Toronto Islands, with the greatest concentration a bit to the west of Ontario Place. When the Tunderbirds came here in '03 they did a sneak pass directly over the middle of the crowd, everyone was looking out towards the lake when the damn thing came from behind and scared the shit out of us.

[Broomstick]

I've seen both the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels at the Chicago Air and Water Show do low level passes over the crowd. However, such passes are invariably straight and level flight, the least likely mode for a major SNAFU, and given the position of the crowds and the flight path, they are only over the crowd for mere moments.

Both those demo teams will also make passes through the Chicago Loop skyscrapers (I've been in some of the taller buildings where you can look down at a passing jet during their practice or the airshow) but, again, this is straight and level flight and they are the ONLY teams permitted to do this during the show.

As for Aerius' anecdote - it can be hard to judge distance from the ground to an airplane above even for people used to hanging around aviation, and I am speaking primarily of US rules - every country varies in its airshow regulations (civilian low-flying regs vary as well, but not nearly so much. The US has some of the strictest air show rules and some of the laxest civilian low-flight regs). As I mentioned many posts ago there are exceptions to the low-flight rules but they're rare and, more importantly, cleared in advance. That, and Canadian regulations may well permit some things in Canada that aren't permitted in the US.

I see a double standard here, with the "oh, nothing bad happened, punish them but don't ground them forever" vs. the screaming when some military airplane accidentally takes out some civilians during training, or maneuvers, or during combat situations. Pilots who don't have the self-discipline to behave are vastly more likely to be involved in a later tragedy.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

In militaries more interested in performance than lawsuits and where men still have balls of steel...

I still say the best part of being a woman is that I never have to prove how much of a man I am. Are you aware that women have a significantly lower risk of accident in ALL areas of aviation in which they participate? Less testosterone poisoning. Me, I want to die in bed at 110 with three dozen log books of flight hours - go ahead and be macho as you want to be, meanwhile I'll be alive and flying.

That was a pretty nasty remark, when I clearly meant that I found it sexy (I am bi, you know, and I happen to find the Armée de l'air quite sexy. Sue me). Going for the low blow just because I point out the fact that other countries are perfectly willing to let their jets cruise at 30 meters over a crowded highway when training in an allied country, no less? Maybe they're just better at training their pilots for low-altitude maneouvres than we are. I expect an apology for it, and I also expect an apology for:

I see a double standard here, with the "oh, nothing bad happened, punish them but don't ground them forever" vs. the screaming when some military airplane accidentally takes out some civilians during training, or maneuvers, or during combat situations. Pilots who don't have the self-discipline to behave are vastly more likely to be involved in a later tragedy.

As I believe it is 100% inevitable that military training will take lives no matter how much we try to minimize it, and you intentionally painted your entire opposition with the same false brush. Look, military pilots != civilian pilots, and military pilots must train for war in peacetime. Our jets have been glorified bomb trucks for the past twenty years, but that doesn't mean it'll always remain so. And for that matter, since when the hell was I a jet fighter pilot, anyway?

[Phantasee]

I wanted to see the jets flying through Chicago skyscrapers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2Iavl3aKCo
At 2:00.

[Broomstick]

In militaries more interested in performance than lawsuits and where men still have balls of steel...

I still say the best part of being a woman is that I never have to prove how much of a man I am. Are you aware that women have a significantly lower risk of accident in ALL areas of aviation in which they participate? Less testosterone poisoning. Me, I want to die in bed at 110 with three dozen log books of flight hours - go ahead and be macho as you want to be, meanwhile I'll be alive and flying.

That was a pretty nasty remark, when I clearly meant that I found it sexy (I am bi, you know, and I happen to find the Armée de l'air quite sexy. Sue me). Going for the low blow just because I point out the fact that other countries are perfectly willing to let their jets cruise at 30 meters over a crowded highway when training in an allied country, no less? Maybe they're just better at training their pilots for low-altitude maneouvres than we are. I expect an apology for it, and I also expect an apology for:

Oh, fuck you, Marina, not everything is a stab at your sexuality or gender. I've been using that line for 15 or more years now, it's not special to you. Wasn't even thinking about that - trust you to get in a huff from being treated just like everyone else. Yeah, airplanes are sexy, I get damp panties just thinking about them, big deal.

As for other countries, the only explanation I can see is that they are more tolerant of needless deaths.

In actual combat flying 30 meters over a crowded highway might be justifiable - there's no good reason to do it in peacetime, or in an airshow. Here is a list of airshow accidents from 1922 to 2010. A lot of them involve low-level maneuvers and phrases like "failed to pull out of a dive" and "miscalculated altitude". In 1997 in the US some people on the ground received "minor injuries" when there was crash outside the airshow area of a jet. No spectators harmed. You have to go back to 1972 for an airshow crash in the US that killed anyone on the ground/spectators.

Contrast to these: 2002 in the Ukraine 85 dead and 100 injured when an airplane careens into the crowd. The Ramstein air disaster of 1998 in Germany killed 67 people on the ground and seriously injured 346. In 1983 three people on the ground were killed when a low fly by went wrong in Frankfort, Germany. 1973 eight were killed on the ground at the Paris Air Show.

So, bravo to those balls-to-the-walls macho men for killing their audience. The accident record supports my position, not yours. Low altitude is a common factor in airshow accidents and deaths, and US airshow regulations that keep airplanes at a particular distance from the audience do seem to reduce injuries and death to those on the ground.

I see a double standard here, with the "oh, nothing bad happened, punish them but don't ground them forever" vs. the screaming when some military airplane accidentally takes out some civilians during training, or maneuvers, or during combat situations. Pilots who don't have the self-discipline to behave are vastly more likely to be involved in a later tragedy.

As I believe it is 100% inevitable that military training will take lives no matter how much we try to minimize it, and you intentionally painted your entire opposition with the same false brush. Look, military pilots != civilian pilots, and military pilots must train for war in peacetime.

I have repeatedly stated that there is a place for low-level flight, in both training and actual combat, but a civilian environment is not that place! Over a stadium full of people watching a football game is NO place to take on increased risk. At least in the US, military pilots in civilian airspace are supposed to obey civilian rules barring actual emergencies/attack.

I'm sorry it chaps your ass I'm right and you're wrong, but that's the way it is. Low level flight is inherently higher risk than high level flight. There is no reason to bust minimum altitude over a crowd in a civilian environment. It doesn't matter whether the pilot is military or civilian, or if the airplane is military or civilian. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the fantasy that the military obeys a different set of physical laws than civilians do. Real life isn't a movie, there are no exceptions to physics. And there's no reason NOT to reduce risk and accidents to the lowest possible given the "mission" - whether that's a bombing run, dogfight, airshow, stadium fly over, or just tooling around the back on a pleasant summer afternoon.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

*Sigh* Yeah, because I'm totally La Maupin or Katie who gets pissed off at every single little comment on the Colbert report. No, that comment seemed... Contextlessly shallow, Broomstick, because I am not the one doing it, though certainly I am defending it.

The simple fact though is that low altitude manoeuvring at speed is a useful military tactic--when you are properly trained for it, which requires peacetime training for doing so, which will result in fatalities. If we use your standard--why is alcohol still legal in the United States? Can the thousands of people who die each year from alcohol related causes possibly be compared to a couple hundred fatalities in a decade from training for the defence of your nation and her interests? Which one has a legitimate function?

Now, was the airshow STUPID and UNNECESSARY? Yes. Should they have been grounded temporarily, busted in rank, and docked some pay for it? YES, that is not at dispute--not at least with me. But you are not right. This behaviour does not warrant permanent grounding because the act itself is a perfectly legitimate military tactic of extremely low altitude flight. The problem was that they did it at an inappropriate time and place, and for that the punishment should be proportionally less than if it was illegitimate.

[Broomstick]

I wanted to see the jets flying through Chicago skyscrapers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2Iavl3aKCo
At 2:00.

Both those buildings are well over 1,000 feet tall (300 meters), so even if they're going between buildings towers they are actually still a good distance off the ground. I'm pretty sure the one on the left in the video is the Willis (formerly Sears) Tower, which is 1,452 feet/442 meters tall. Just FYI.

[Uraniun235]

They're way closer than 1000 feet to those towers though. What if one of those jets had lost control and plowed into a skyscraper with a big load of hot jet fuel? They look like they're fooling around a lot more than some guys cruising in a straight line.

[eion]

the act itself is a perfectly legitimate military tactic of extremely low altitude flight. The problem was that they did it at an inappropriate time and place, and for that the punishment should be proportionally less than if it was illegitimate.

(Emphasis mine)

As is firing a machine gun over the heads of a crowd, but if two infantrymen did that at a football game for the purpose of a patriotic display they'd get a lot worse than a desk job for the rest of their careers.

The time and the place is everything, just look at the above posting about fighter jets buzzing enemy troops in Afghanistan. There is no reason for low level demonstration flying over an audience.

They're way closer than 1000 feet to those towers though. What if one of those jets had lost control and plowed into a skyscraper with a big load of hot jet fuel? They look like they're fooling around a lot more than some guys cruising in a straight line.

They spend a whole week dress rehearsing (literally flying the show every day) for their annual biennial appearance at the Chicago Air & Water Show. I'm certain there is no "fooling around" going on; it's all a part of the plan. The altimeter reading in that clip is 1,650 for the record.

EDIT: Thunderbirds only appear every other year.

[Broomstick]

*Sigh* Yeah, because I'm totally La Maupin or Katie who gets pissed off at every single little comment on the Colbert report.

Sometimes you are over sensitive, and lord knows you have good reason to be. If I unintentionally hurt your feelings I'm sorry for that, but I don't constantly have your issues on my mind. As I said, I was treating you just like everyone else in regards to flinging insults around.

he simple fact though is that low altitude manoeuvring at speed is a useful military tactic--when you are properly trained for it, which requires peacetime training for doing so, which will result in fatalities.

Yes, but over a stadium full of people is NOT the place to practice those maneuvers! That was where all this started - two jet jockeys getting their wings clipped for a too-low flyby over a stadium full of civilians. It's a very different situation than low-level training flights over, say, salt pans in the western deserts.

If we use your standard--why is alcohol still legal in the United States? Can the thousands of people who die each year from alcohol related causes possibly be compared to a couple hundred fatalities in a decade from training for the defence of your nation and her interests? Which one has a legitimate function?

I'm not talking about planned military training flights - I"m talking about it being stupid and gratuitously reckless to fly below standard minimums over crowds of people.

You're allowed to drink alcohol in this country, but it's not legal to drive while drunk and you can lose your license for doing so. Likewise, there are times and places where it is legal to fly an airplane at low altitude, but if you do it at inappropriate times and places that pose a risk to others you can lose your pilot's license.

Now, was the airshow STUPID and UNNECESSARY? Yes. Should they have been grounded temporarily, busted in rank, and docked some pay for it? YES, that is not at dispute--not at least with me. But you are not right. This behaviour does not warrant permanent grounding because the act itself is a perfectly legitimate military tactic of extremely low altitude flight. The problem was that they did it at an inappropriate time and place, and for that the punishment should be proportionally less than if it was illegitimate.

I'm sorry you disagree with regulations and how they are enforced, but however you see this behavior the military obviously disagrees. It is not as if they were summarily grounded for good the next day - there was an investigation and an inquiry into the matter. I apparently see this as a much more serious transgression than you do, and I attribute part of my attitude to be my training and experience as a pilot. It was drummed into me from day one of flight training that you do NOT put people on the ground at risk! Granted, the military is sometimes required to kill people on the ground, but for god's sake that doesn't apply in peacetime and in civilian territory! Since WWII the US has spent considerable time, effort, and money on eliminating untargeted civilian deaths even in combat! They violated their professional ethics by needlessly increasing the risk for people on the ground.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If we use your standard--why is alcohol still legal in the United States? Can the thousands of people who die each year from alcohol related causes possibly be compared to a couple hundred fatalities in a decade from training for the defence of your nation and her interests? Which one has a legitimate function?

I'm not talking about planned military training flights - I"m talking about it being stupid and gratuitously reckless to fly below standard minimums over crowds of people.

You're allowed to drink alcohol in this country, but it's not legal to drive while drunk and you can lose your license for doing so. Likewise, there are times and places where it is legal to fly an airplane at low altitude, but if you do it at inappropriate times and places that pose a risk to others you can lose your pilot's license.

I'm fully aware of that. The point is that if we took measures to fully stop it cold like you demand, we should reasonably apply that to other indiscretions as well.

I'm sorry you disagree with regulations and how they are enforced, but however you see this behavior the military obviously disagrees.

AMERICAN regulations. Just because AMERICA requires something doesn't mean it's right. Is our policy of refusing to let pilots sleep intelligent? Nobody else in the world does it because short naps are safer than forcing pilots to stay awake to the point of exhaustion. Why are American regulations automatically right and French regulations automatically wrong?

It is not as if they were summarily grounded for good the next day - there was an investigation and an inquiry into the matter. I apparently see this as a much more serious transgression than you do, and I attribute part of my attitude to be my training and experience as a pilot. It was drummed into me from day one of flight training that you do NOT put people on the ground at risk!

And I got my damned license and I learned that too. I'm just not stuck-up enough about it to dream that flying a single engine fixed undercarriage private aircraft is remotely the same as a military jet or that my knowledge in doing so and the regulations I was taught and obeyed should somehow remotely be applied to military aviation, mmkay? You can attribute your attitude to your training all you want, but the fact is you should NOT be doing so, because military aviation should NOT be forced to comply with civil aviation rules.

Granted, the military is sometimes required to kill people on the ground, but for god's sake that doesn't apply in peacetime and in civilian territory! Since WWII the US has spent considerable time, effort, and money on eliminating untargeted civilian deaths even in combat! They violated their professional ethics by needlessly increasing the risk for people on the ground.

They did, and they should have been punished for it, but the punishment in this case was excessive. You think if they'd been busted back two steps in rank and had half their pay docked for a year that they would have ever done this again or anyone else would have imitated them? And then we wouldn't have lost two very valuable and expensive to train aviators.

[Broomstick]

They're way closer than 1000 feet to those towers though. What if one of those jets had lost control and plowed into a skyscraper with a big load of hot jet fuel? They look like they're fooling around a lot more than some guys cruising in a straight line.

There is a push to bar the military demo teams from flying over the Loop because of those very concerns - it's largely decades-long tradition that permits the practice.

What would have happened? Well, it would NOT have been like an airliner plowing into the Word Trade Center. The jets flown are substantial, but nowhere near the size of an Airbus or Boeing passenger jet. If, hypothetically, one had slammed into the Willis Tower it would have made a big hole in the side and started a fire. Loss of life would almost certainly occur as the buildings are occupied during the time of the airshow and practice. It would not, however, bring down the building.

In 1945 the Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 Mitchell bomber. 14 people were killed. There was fire. The accident occurred on a Saturday. Parts of the building were open for business the following Monday. I expect rather similar scale of problems if a Thunderbird or Blue Angel smashed into a Chicago skyscraper, possibly less as the F-16 flown by the Thunderbirds is a smaller, lighter airplane than the B-25.

As for what, exactly, he was doing while flying between buildings... it's not like there's a lot of time devoted to it in the clip, nor do I have the best resolution here, but it looks to me like he was in a shallow bank while going between the towers, after which he went into something like a standard rate turn - pretty tame stuff, really, nothing considered excessive. Maneuvering to land in a standard manner usually calls for the same or even more bank that that. You're just not used to seeing it from the cockpit, probably.

[Broomstick]

If we use your standard--why is alcohol still legal in the United States? Can the thousands of people who die each year from alcohol related causes possibly be compared to a couple hundred fatalities in a decade from training for the defence of your nation and her interests? Which one has a legitimate function?

I'm not talking about planned military training flights - I"m talking about it being stupid and gratuitously reckless to fly below standard minimums over crowds of people.

You're allowed to drink alcohol in this country, but it's not legal to drive while drunk and you can lose your license for doing so. Likewise, there are times and places where it is legal to fly an airplane at low altitude, but if you do it at inappropriate times and places that pose a risk to others you can lose your pilot's license.

I'm fully aware of that. The point is that if we took measures to fully stop it cold like you demand, we should reasonably apply that to other indiscretions as well.

NOWHERE have I said the military should stop training in low level flying! Nowhere - seriously, point to where you think I said that. What they shouldn't do is conduct such practices over stadiums full of civilians no matter how well trained they are. It's an unnecessary risk, it's a pointless increase of risk.

I'm not even advocating barring civilians from low level flying, which, by the way, is legal in the US as long as you maintain minimum distances from people or objects The specific regulations for civilians in the US is in Part 91 section 119 of the Federal Aviation Regulations and they all boil down to "avoiding killing people and breaking things". IF you're over, say, farm territory or open wilderness with no one around for miles and miles you are allowed to fly as low as you want because no bystanders are at risk. Over a city? Different story.

I am not conversant with the exact regulations the military uses, but if the navy decided these two were in violation of minimum safe altitudes for the circumstances involved I have no reason to question that.

Here's the analogy: If you want to get drunk in your own back yard to the point of passing out it's legal to do so in the US. I think it's stupid, but I don't think I should pass a law against it, either. It's your problem. However, when you get behind the wheel of a car puking drunk that has suddenly because everyone else's problem. THAT's where the line gets drawn.

The problem with these guys is not that they were flying low (well, there are issues with that, but that's not what bought them the wing clipping) but that they were flying low over a crowd of people.

I'm sorry you disagree with regulations and how they are enforced, but however you see this behavior the military obviously disagrees.

AMERICAN regulations. Just because AMERICA requires something doesn't mean it's right.

Doesn't mean it's wrong, either.

Is our policy of refusing to let pilots sleep intelligent? Nobody else in the world does it because short naps are safer than forcing pilots to stay awake to the point of exhaustion.

The military actually DOES have provisions for their pilots to sleep on extended airborne missions. It is legal for private pilots to sleep during a flight provided there is another pilot at the controls and due safety precautions are taken. Where it is illegal is for COMMERCIAL pilots to do so, and I agree that is flawed.

Why are American regulations automatically right and French regulations automatically wrong?

Nothing "automatic" about it that I can see. In fact, I disagree with the commercial bar on appropriate in-flight rest for pilots on extended flights. On the other hand, the US has gone nearly 40 years without a crowd fatality at an airshow whereas Europe has a much more dismal record. My stance is not arbitrary but rather drawn from accident data. Low flights are more dangerous than high flights. Regulations that keep low flights at a distance from crowds seem, over the last 4 decades, to result in a lot fewer deaths to bystanders. That has NOTHING to do with planned military training exercises.

It is not as if they were summarily grounded for good the next day - there was an investigation and an inquiry into the matter. I apparently see this as a much more serious transgression than you do, and I attribute part of my attitude to be my training and experience as a pilot. It was drummed into me from day one of flight training that you do NOT put people on the ground at risk!

And I got my damned license and I learned that too. I'm just not stuck-up enough about it to dream that flying a single engine fixed undercarriage private aircraft

I've flown retractable gear, too. More than one. Just for the record.

I won't count the one military aircraft I have flown, as it's an antique and technology is completely different than the jets we're talking about - gee, maybe that's why I haven't mentioned it. I have repeatedly stated that I am a civilian pilot and I'm sticking to where I have experience so that people will not get the wrong impression of my skill set. I have also repeatedly stated that I'm not an expert on jets or military aircraft. If one of our military pilots came in here and disagreed with me, with a post that discussed the precise military regs and reasoning for his/her position I'd be much less inclined to argue, but YOU, Marina, aren't a military pilot either.

.. is remotely the same as a military jet or that my knowledge in doing so and the regulations I was taught and obeyed should somehow remotely be applied to military aviation, mmkay? You can attribute your attitude to your training all you want, but the fact is you should NOT be doing so, because military aviation should NOT be forced to comply with civil aviation rules.

And yet... in civilian airspace in the US the military does comply with civilian rules as far as possible! That isn't my doing, it's the decision of the military and the US government, who apparently disagree with you.

The regulations that are based on physics and safety data yes, SHOULD be applied to BOTH civilian and military aviation. Why? Because the laws of physics don't distinguish between the two.

Oh, those poor, poor military pilots - compelled to follow those onerous rules about minimum safe distance between themselves and a crowd on the ground! Boo-hoo-fucking-hoo.

Really, this IS a bit of a change, given that you're normally such an authoritarian and I'm usually the opposite.

They did, and they should have been punished for it, but the punishment in this case was excessive. You think if they'd been busted back two steps in rank and had half their pay docked for a year that they would have ever done this again or anyone else would have imitated them? And then we wouldn't have lost two very valuable and expensive to train aviators.

Aviators who can't follow the rules shouldn't be in the cockpit.

I don't think the punishment is excessive given that military pilots are expected to adhere to the highest standards. Obviously, you disagree. I don't see where either of us is going to move.

[FSTargetDrone]

This discussion of aircraft flying near buildings brings this to mind:



Anyway, I've got to say, I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of any kind of aircraft flying that close to buildings in a city, other than medivac/other rescue or police flights. If the military has some good reason to fly around city buildings (training), fine, but I don't see how promotional/exhibition flights are a good enough reason.

[lPeregrine]

And let's not forget one very important thing here: there is a huge difference between a planned low-level flight (even one near civilians on the ground) and a couple pilots deciding "hey, it would be really cool if we did this at 100' instead of 1000'." One involves proper safety precautions such as ensuring that the flight path is clear of obstacles, etc, one of them involves a significant risk of mistakes like "oops, we didn't know the support lines for that tower were in our path" and a lot of dead people on the ground.

[Questor]

Just to support Broomstick here, and not to insult anyone else, but I'm going to post a couple of maps showing the large areas of a couple of states that I'm betting those pilots would be allowed to fly as low as they like (assuming they are cleared for it and its in the flight plan. (These are big PDFs be warned). Check out the huge areas in blue!

California: Of note are: Hunter-Ligget Military Reservation, NAWS China Lake, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms - where I've seen planes flying at low altitude, Chocolate Mountain Naval Aerial Gunnery Range, MCAS Miramar - formerly of Top Gun fame, Camp Pendleton

Nevada: Sites of Note: Fallon NAS, the new home of the Naval Fighter Weapons School, and you see that huge blue area at the bottom - that's Nellis

Just for fun, here's Arizona, and here's New Mexico, and Utah. Check out the UTTR

[La Maupin]

*Sigh* Yeah, because I'm totally La Maupin or Katie who gets pissed off at every single little comment on the Colbert report. No, that comment seemed... Contextlessly shallow, Broomstick, because I am not the one doing it, though certainly I am defending it.

Thank you so much for this lovely example of scapegoating. I expected better of you.

[Darth Wong]

I cannot believe this thread. Two guys decide to do a little unauthorized showboating over the football stadium of the school they both happened to graduate from, the Navy revokes their flight status because they disobeyed orders and treated their fucking government aircraft as personal recreational vehicles, and people are actually defending them? Casting out bullshit about how it's not necessarily unsafe?

Let's go over this:

1) Direct contravention of standing orders.
2) Treating fighter aircraft like a fucking personal toy, with which to showboat at their alma mater.

What the fuck about this merits any kind of lenience? Those men are authorized to use those aircraft in the service of Uncle Sam, not for their own goddamned amusement. Why should anyone trust such expensive and dangerous weapon systems to people with this kind of attitude? I'm sure there are plenty of pilots who bust their balls trying to get into the seat of a fighter plane instead of hauling cargo or fuel, and to see a couple of yahoos get fighter planes and then treat them like personal property would be outrageously galling, to say the least.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I cannot believe this thread. Two guys decide to do a little unauthorized showboating over the football stadium of the school they both happened to graduate from, the Navy revokes their flight status because they disobeyed orders and treated their fucking government aircraft as personal recreational vehicles, and people are actually defending them? Casting out bullshit about how it's not necessarily unsafe?

Let's go over this:

1) Direct contravention of standing orders.
2) Treating fighter aircraft like a fucking personal toy, with which to showboat at their alma mater.

What the fuck about this merits any kind of lenience? Those men are authorized to use those aircraft in the service of Uncle Sam, not for their own goddamned amusement. Why should anyone trust such expensive and dangerous weapon systems to people with this kind of attitude? I'm sure there are plenty of pilots who bust their balls trying to get into the seat of a fighter plane instead of hauling cargo or fuel, and to see a couple of yahoos get fighter planes and then treat them like personal property would be outrageously galling, to say the least.

The fact that the training of a fighter pilot takes years and $2.6 million USD, Mike, should be a factor--yahoos and fools they certainly are, but to the point where it is worth spending $5.2 million to replace them? I have no sympathy for the pilots themselves in this particular instance but as a practical matter it seems a deeply questionable thing as to if what they actually did--and the risk of their doing again--warranted the US government depriving itself of more than five million dollars.