Is this even legal??

[Darkwing]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article581574.ece

Check out the second photo as well.

Would have been cool to see in person!

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Darkwing wrote:
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article581574.ece
>
> Check out the second photo as well.
>
> Would have been cool to see in person!
>
>

The aircraft was in/over and area that had been cleared by both CG and
police boats.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
...
>
> The aircraft was in/over and area that had been cleared by both CG and
> police boats.
>

Not according to the photos.

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The aircraft was in/over and area that had been cleared by both CG and
>> police boats.
>>
>
> Not according to the photos.
>
>

Look at the first photo. You can see a police boat. The one with the
green stripe on the bow. The second photo can be explained by the use of
a telephoto lens.

[Jay Honeck]

> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article581574.ece
>
> Check out the second photo as well.
>
> Would have been cool to see in person!

Not very nice of this website to use those photos without attributing
them to the guy who took them. (Although I suppose they might have
bought them from him?) Of course, after they've zinged around the
worldwide web for a few weeks, proper attribution is sometimes quite
difficult.

I was on his website (which I sadly can't find right now) a few days
ago, and marveled at the zillion fantastic shots he took of this Blue
Angels performance. The guy is good.

His telephoto lens makes everything look much closer than it really
was. Great shots, though -- the best I've seen.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
...
>
> Look at the first photo. You can see a police boat. The one with the green
> stripe on the bow. The second photo can be explained by the use of a
> telephoto lens.
>

I see many boats in the photos. The area had not been cleared.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Clark" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wot? You think the boats just randomly formed a nice corridor?
>

No.

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Darkwing wrote:
>http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article581574.ece
>
>Check out the second photo as well.
>
>Would have been cool to see in person!

I was there for that performance on Fisherman's Wharf.

It is legal as CG and other auhtorities keep a wide corridor free of vessels.

The telephoto effect foreshortens the apparent positions of everything.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200712/1

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 18, 11:36 am, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote:
> Darkwing wrote:
> >http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article581574.ece
>
> >Check out the second photo as well.
>
> >Would have been cool to see in person!
>
> I was there for that performance on Fisherman's Wharf.
>
> It is legal as CG and other auhtorities keep a wide corridor free of vessels.
>
> The telephoto effect foreshortens the apparent positions of everything.
>
> --
> Message posted via AviationKB.comhttp://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200712/1

Are they flying super hornets now? The super hornet is bigger than the
old hornet and would appear to be closer as a result.

-Robert

[buttman]

On Dec 18, 9:04 am, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article581574.ece
>
> Check out the second photo as well.
>
> Would have been cool to see in person!

its the military, they do whatever they want

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Look at the first photo. You can see a police boat. The one with the green
>> stripe on the bow. The second photo can be explained by the use of a
>> telephoto lens.
>>
>
> I see many boats in the photos. The area had not been cleared.
>
>

Yes it has.

[Mxsmanic]

buttman writes:

> its the military, they do whatever they want

Hardly.

[the warlock society]

john smith wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article581574.ece
> >>
> >> Check out the second photo as well.
> >>
> >> Would have been cool to see in person!
> >
> > Not very nice of this website to use those photos without attributing
> > them to the guy who took them. (Although I suppose they might have
> > bought them from him?) Of course, after they've zinged around the
> > worldwide web for a few weeks, proper attribution is sometimes quite
> > difficult.
> >
> > I was on his website (which I sadly can't find right now) a few days
> > ago, and marveled at the zillion fantastic shots he took of this Blue
> > Angels performance. The guy is good.
> >
> > His telephoto lens makes everything look much closer than it really
> > was. Great shots, though -- the best I've seen.
>
>
> You mean this on:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~bzee1a/

obviously steve is happier thinking that a rogue blue angels pilot
decided to scream through the bay at 25 ft AGL.... you know... the way
they always do...

[Jay Honeck]

> You mean this on:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~bzee1a/- Hide quoted text -

Dat be da won!

Thanks!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[gatt[_2_]]

"Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
...

>> I see many boats in the photos. The area had not been cleared.

> Yes it has.

I have a difficult time believing that, with the entire city of San
Francisco looking on and the water teeming with USCG and other vessels, that
the Blue Angels simply said "Aw, who cares if it's illegal? Do it anyway."
....with absolutely zero documented repercussion.

An accident under those circumstances would end the Angels. They do not
have a recorded history of behaving in such a way.

-c

[Vic Baron]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...
>> You mean this on:
>>
>> http://home.comcast.net/~bzee1a/- Hide quoted text -
>
> Dat be da won!
>
> Thanks!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"\

I see what you mean - he is one helluva photog! Great pix!

Vic

[gatt[_2_]]

"buttman" > wrote in message news:d119487f-ed5e-4e07-85da-

>> Check out the second photo as well.
>>
>> Would have been cool to see in person!
>
> its the military, they do whatever they want

No they don't. They stick to the script or they die. There is no margin
for error, and they have their routine memorized and practice it as a team
before they get in the cockpit. It's that simple.

-c
(somebody correct me if I'm wrong.)

[Jim Logajan]

"gatt" > wrote:
> "buttman" > wrote in message
> news:d119487f-ed5e-4e07-85da-
>
>>> Check out the second photo as well.
>>>
>>> Would have been cool to see in person!
>>
>> its the military, they do whatever they want
>
> No they don't. They stick to the script or they die. There is no
> margin for error, and they have their routine memorized and practice
> it as a team before they get in the cockpit. It's that simple.
>
> -c
> (somebody correct me if I'm wrong.)

Well ... I believe that the FAA has the authority to grant waivers for any
of the regulations it writes. After all, it presumably wrote and/or
approved of them in the first place. So they may have granted waiver(s) for
those planes to perform those maneuvers.

Also, according to the information I found, military flights pretty much
have to follow the same FARs that civilian flights do - I once located and
posted what I believe is the relevant legislation that governs when and
where the military is and is not governed by the FARs. I could go hunt it
down and post it again if anyone is interested.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:17:57 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck
> wrote:

>> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article581574.ece
>>
>> Check out the second photo as well.
>>
>> Would have been cool to see in person!

There is a video of this pass on U-Tube. I don't have the URL any more
though. In the video it's obvious he was flying down a cleared
corridor which is plainly visible in the second shot in the above
link.
The video appears to be from the same location of the second shot
above.

Roger (K8RI)


>
>Not very nice of this website to use those photos without attributing
>them to the guy who took them. (Although I suppose they might have
>bought them from him?) Of course, after they've zinged around the
>worldwide web for a few weeks, proper attribution is sometimes quite
>difficult.
>
>I was on his website (which I sadly can't find right now) a few days
>ago, and marveled at the zillion fantastic shots he took of this Blue
>Angels performance. The guy is good.
>
>His telephoto lens makes everything look much closer than it really
>was. Great shots, though -- the best I've seen.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> buttman writes:
>
>> its the military, they do whatever they want
>
> Hardly.
>


Well, more than you, wannabe boi

Bertie

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Clark" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well then, just how did those boats come to form that very nice corridor?
> Hmmm? Might it have been a result of harbor police & CG handling the
> situation through edict and enforcement? Maybe? There are obviously
> enforcement personnel in the photos.
>

What very nice corridor?

How much space must be cleared? How much space has been cleared?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
>
> It would be very difficult to put on any type of airshow without an
> FAA waver. That's pretty much standard.
>

A waiver would explain why the area wasn't cleared.

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
"gatt" > wrote:

> "Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> I see many boats in the photos. The area had not been cleared.
>
> > Yes it has.
>
> I have a difficult time believing that, with the entire city of San
> Francisco looking on and the water teeming with USCG and other vessels, that
> the Blue Angels simply said "Aw, who cares if it's illegal? Do it anyway."
> ...with absolutely zero documented repercussion.
>
> An accident under those circumstances would end the Angels. They do not
> have a recorded history of behaving in such a way.

Indeed not. This is a show that I've watched for years, and that's done
with, well, military precision, over the city itself as well as over the
Bay. The consequences of getting anything more than trivially wrong when
doing low-level aerobatics over a very crowded city don't bear thinking
about....

Oh, and the noise is incredible -- I used to work near Fishermans Wharf,
and the rehearsals would always set off car alarms in the area around
us. You always know whan it's Fleet Week... Cool!

As for the images in question, I haven't a clue -- I'm typically on dry
land with only my bare eyes to watch with, and I don't remember them
doing that particular maneuver this year. But then I wouldn't have seen
it anyway from where I was.

Hamish

[BT]

It's a telephoto shot that kills the perspective of depth perception.. the
flight path is obviously in a cleared lane with at least "air show crowd
control" set backs on both sides of the lane. The police boats mentioned in
previous threads is marking the lane. This is a very controlled event. I've
flown similar events in my military career, no I am not Blue Angle Navy..

BT

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article581574.ece
>
> Check out the second photo as well.
>
> Would have been cool to see in person!
>

[BT]

Viper.. I flew the Chicago Air and Water show a couple of years.. back in
the early 90s..
Those out with the boat races complained that they could not hear their
boats when we did our routine.
Enjoy..
BT (Ret USAF, B-1)

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
>I was involved peripherally in an airshow with the Thunderbirds, and have
>been in displays at many others in the back scenes, hanging around in the
>ops buildings, etc. There is a mountain of paperwork that is required for
>the demo teams, and the FAA is always closely involved. There is always a
>safety zone on either the ground or water, and typically a police or Coast
>Guard boat ends up being show center in the water. (actually I got an
>invite to sit in the show center boat for the Chicago Air and Water show
>this year- I can hardly wait!)
>
>

[BT]

Trust... it was cleared.. there is a "air show lane".. you just don't want
to see it.

BT

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> It would be very difficult to put on any type of airshow without an
>> FAA waver. That's pretty much standard.
>>
>
> A waiver would explain why the area wasn't cleared.
>

[Chris Wells]

What very nice corridor?



The one only a complete idiot (or a troll) could miss.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 18, 9:32 pm, "BT" > wrote:
> It's a telephoto shot that kills the perspective of depth perception.. the
> flight path is obviously in a cleared lane with at least "air show crowd
> control" set backs on both sides of the lane. The police boats mentioned in
> previous threads is marking the lane. This is a very controlled event. I've
> flown similar events in my military career, no I am not Blue Angle Navy..

My father was asked to apply to the Blue Angels in the early 80's. At
the time he thought he could make CO faster if he stayed in a tactical
squadron. He was right, he made XO then CO soon afterwards. Not sure
what would have happened had he taken time out to fly with the Blue
Angels.

-robert

[John Godwin]

Clark > wrote in
:

> Really now Mister McNicoll, do you have some cognitive disability
> of which folks should be aware or are just being obtuse?

I vote for obtuse.

--

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 18, 9:04 am, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article581574.ece
>
> Check out the second photo as well.
>
> Would have been cool to see in person!

BTW: Its worth point out that the UK Sun is not a real newspaper its a
tablod. There is a reason no real news station picked this up. Also, I
believe the Hornet is actually behind the passenger ship in the first
slide, not in front of it. The Hornet (especially the Super Hornet) is
a big bird and therefor appears close than it is.

-robert

[the warlock society]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > It would be very difficult to put on any type of airshow without an
> > FAA waver. That's pretty much standard.
> >
>
> A waiver would explain why the area wasn't cleared.

A rock inside your head would explain why you're so stupid.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-12-18 09:23:04 -0800, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> said:

>
> "Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The aircraft was in/over and area that had been cleared by both CG and
>> police boats.
>>
>
> Not according to the photos.

Long telephoto lenses compress perspective, making everything look a
lot closer together than it really is. The Blue Angels do this maneuver
every year and there is a very large area cleared of boats. You cannot
see this cleared area because of the low angle of the shot and the
telephoto compression, but it is obviously there if you know something
about photography. As for anyone on the boats being 'terrified,' I
doubt it. The reason the boats were there was to watch the show and
everyone knows what the Blue Angels do every year.

Wide angle lenses have the opposite effect, spreading things out so
that they look farther apart than they really are. This is why people
who use a wide angle lens to try to take pictures of, say, tulip fields
with Mt. Baker in the background are often disappointed. They get wide
spaces of dirt between the tulips and Mt. Baker appears as a little
white dot in the background. The wise photographer uses a telephoto for
such a "wide-angle" view, creating a sea of closely packed tulips with
Mt. Baker looming like giant ice cream cone in the background.

The principle is the same in this picture. The boats in this picture
are much further apart than they appear to be and the jet is well clear
of them and not flying directly toward any of them. If the photographer
had not used a long lens, you would barely be able to see the plane at
all.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"BT" > wrote in message
...
>
> Trust... it was cleared.. there is a "air show lane".. you just don't want
> to see it.
>

I can't see it because there are boats in the way.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Clark" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why the very nice corridor that is readily apparent in those photos. You
> do
> know how to look at a photo shot through a telephoto lense now don't you?
>

No. Why don't you look at it and tell me how wide that "very nice corridor
is"?


>
> Why the edict specified space was cleared. That is obvious since the show
> was conducted.
>

What was the edict specified space? Is it the infallability of government
employees that makes it obvious?


>
> Really now Mister McNicoll, do you have some cognitive disability of which
> folks should be aware or are just being obtuse?
>

No.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Being a past IAC contest director, I have written the waiver requests for
> aerobatic competitions and practice boxes. IIRC, the regs call for a
> deadline 400 foot from the edge of the box for aircraft under 200 kts and
> 1000 (or 1200?) feet deadline from for aircraft 200 knots and above. The
> same rules apply to airshows.
>

That would make the required corridor 2000 feet wide, which is nearly half
the distance between the supporting towers of the bridge.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Clark" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> No. Why don't you look at it and tell me how wide that "very nice
>> corridor is"?
>
> Because you obviously don't believe me. I would rather wrestle with a pig
> than continue intercourse with your obtuse behavior.
>
> I suggest you learn how to look at photos produced through telephoto
> lenses.
>

In other words, you have no idea how wide that "very nice corridor is".

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> No. Why don't you look at it and tell me how wide that "very nice
>>> corridor is"?
>[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>> I suggest you learn how to look at photos produced through telephoto
>> lenses.
>
>In other words, you have no idea how wide that "very nice corridor is".

I was there. I saw it from a high vantage point. It appeared to be more than
500 - 800' or so.
It is the same every year.
Historically, vessel operators are pretty cooperative from my observations of
being on the water during these events.
The CG, FD and others enforce limits when necessary.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Clark" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> In other words, you have no idea how wide that "very nice corridor is".
>>
>
> Mr. McNicoll, you do not speak for me. Do try to remember that.
>

Nobody is speaking for you, your messages make it clear you have no idea how
wide that corridor is.


>
> As I said before, I suggest you learn how to look at photos produced
> through
> telephoto lenses.
>

Your messages also make it clear there is no benefit in following your
suggestions.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in message
news:7cfbe3564cb76@uwe...
>
> I was there. I saw it from a high vantage point. It appeared to be more
> than
> 500 - 800' or so.
> It is the same every year.
> Historically, vessel operators are pretty cooperative from my observations
> of
> being on the water during these events.
> The CG, FD and others enforce limits when necessary.
>

Thank you. That's consistent with the estimate I made based on the number
of vertical cables and distance between them. 500 - 800' wide means they
were less than 500' from persons, vessels, and structure.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 20, 2:23 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in messagenews:7cfbe3564cb76@uwe...
>
>
>
> > I was there. I saw it from a high vantage point. It appeared to be more
> > than
> > 500 - 800' or so.
> > It is the same every year.
> > Historically, vessel operators are pretty cooperative from my observations
> > of
> > being on the water during these events.
> > The CG, FD and others enforce limits when necessary.
>
> Thank you. That's consistent with the estimate I made based on the number
> of vertical cables and distance between them. 500 - 800' wide means they
> were less than 500' from persons, vessels, and structure.

The 500' rule only applies to you Steve, and for good reason.

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> I was there. I saw it from a high vantage point. It appeared to be more
>> than
>[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>> being on the water during these events.
>> The CG, FD and others enforce limits when necessary.
>
>Thank you. That's consistent with the estimate I made based on the number
>of vertical cables and distance between them. 500 - 800' wide means they
>were less than 500' from persons, vessels, and structure.

Maybe so.

Just for grins, I contacted the Blue's PR dept. to see what is established
for these performances.
Now I'm really curious to see how close my visual estimations were.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200712/1