Is it just me or does this seem a little close to the crowd?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYfhC9ft_hk

The question should be "isn't that crown a little too close to the runway?"


"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYfhC9ft_hk

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYfhC9ft_hk


It's not you. I received a tape on this aircraft yesterday from within
our flight safety community for air shows. He came extremely close to
catching a wingtip on both the takeoff and a later pass; both times to
the left.
In our opinion, this was a VERY close call and totally unnecessary.
Things are bad enough in the demonstration and display community this
year without a pilot like this one making it worse.
It's being investigated.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYfhC9ft_hk

It's not you. I received a tape on this aircraft yesterday from within
our flight safety community for air shows. He came extremely close to
catching a wingtip on both the takeoff and a later pass; both times to
the left.
In our opinion, this was a VERY close call and totally unnecessary.
Things are bad enough in the demonstration and display community this
year without a pilot like this one making it worse.
It's being investigated.

10 pages and growing of discussion over on
PPRuNe.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=292517

On Sep 20, 2:31 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

In our opinion, this was a VERY close call and totally unnecessary.
Things are bad enough in the demonstration and display community this
year without a pilot like this one making it worse.
It's being investigated.

I believe that watching the videos alone isn't givng a clear picture
here. The airfield in question I suspect has geographical aspects
that provide the spectators a different perception of risk than that
which is actually present. Ie, the other side of the runway is lower
than the rest of the airfield. The aircraft parked on the flightline
also contribute a bit to the illusion I think.

The pass was certainly low and close to the crowd, but I don't think
it was too much lower than I've seen here in New Zealand from similar
heavies (727 and 757 from the RNZAF mainly).

James Sleeman wrote:
On Sep 20, 2:31 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

In our opinion, this was a VERY close call and totally unnecessary.
Things are bad enough in the demonstration and display community this
year without a pilot like this one making it worse.
It's being investigated.

I believe that watching the videos alone isn't givng a clear picture
here. The airfield in question I suspect has geographical aspects
that provide the spectators a different perception of risk than that
which is actually present. Ie, the other side of the runway is lower
than the rest of the airfield. The aircraft parked on the flightline
also contribute a bit to the illusion I think.

The pass was certainly low and close to the crowd, but I don't think
it was too much lower than I've seen here in New Zealand from similar
heavies (727 and 757 from the RNZAF mainly).



The problem wasn't the low pass as much as the left bank without enough
pitch input to compensate for the lift loss.
He was extremely lucky, and I'm getting this from all over the world
from the guys who were there and in the know :-)
DH

--
Dudley Henriques

It's just you. The plane flies parallel and with sufficient distance to
the crowd, so even if he'd hit the ground, nobody would have been in
danger. The folks you see on the ground are not spectators but airshow
stuff or pilots.

Whether the pilot put himself in danger is another question. I can't and
won't judge it, but even if he were, that's what airshow pilots do
routinely.

And concerning Dudley's "our flight safety community for air shows", I'm
looking forward with interest what they intend to investigate about a
Portugese registered airplane flying in Portugal...

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
It's just you. The plane flies parallel and with sufficient distance to
the crowd, so even if he'd hit the ground, nobody would have been in
danger. The folks you see on the ground are not spectators but airshow
stuff or pilots.

Yes, and heaven knows that it is acceptable to put pilots and their parked
aircraft at an unnecessary risk.


Whether the pilot put himself in danger is another question. I can't and
won't judge it, but even if he were, that's what airshow pilots do
routinely.

No. Their goal is to entertain the crowd but NOT put themselves in danger.



And concerning Dudley's "our flight safety community for air shows", I'm
looking forward with interest what they intend to investigate about a
Portugese registered airplane flying in Portugal...

While there is no unified set of rules for airshows, there are governing
bodies in all developed countries. Those governing bodies usually react
with disapproval on stupid pilot tricks (at airshows or otherwise) which put
the public at risk.

Kyle Boatright wrote:

danger. The folks you see on the ground are not spectators but airshow
staff or pilots.

Yes, and heaven knows that it is acceptable to put pilots and their parked
aircraft at an unnecessary risk.

The spectators are usually laypersons and can't judge the risks, so it's
the organisator's and the pilot's responibility to protect them.
Contributing airshow pilots however can judge the risks (I would hope!),
and if they decide to deliberately stand there during a flyby, it's
their choice.

Whether the pilot put himself in danger is another question. I can't and
won't judge it, but even if he were, that's what airshow pilots do
routinely.

No. Their goal is to entertain the crowd but NOT put themselves in danger.

You can read, can't you? Where did I say it was their goal to endanger
themselves? It's their goal to entertain (and probably also a bit to
show off, I dare to assume), and to reach that goal, they accept to take
risks.

BTW, they take routinely much bigger risks than that low flying
airliner. Flying inverted a couple of feet above the runway is *much*
more risky, yet done routinely at airshows and I've yet to see a post
about that here. Probably the most stupid thing done at airshows is the
"inverted ribbon cut", but you see it everywhere and nobody seems to
care. E.g. http://youtube.com/watch?v=sCbwRzgJLhk. In that particular
video you also see one low level pull in which the pilot nearly stalls
the plane. Most dangerous at that altitude, but people don't even
realize the situation. The same goes for those stupid low level flicks
shortly after take off. E.g. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Uy0KkqFf_bU
Extremely risky, because in a flick you have *never* 100% control. Yet
nobody seems to care. But an airliner flying low... wow, *this* is going
to cause discussions! It reminds me somewhat of the quality of certain
newspaper reports which have been discussed here on a regular basis.

BTW, I don't say that I like such displays. Actually I hate them, and I
don't attend airshows for that very reason. I do attend aerobatic
competitions, though, because they are flown at a safe altitude.
Besides, the flying there is mostly better (i.e. more precise), albeit
less spectacular.

bodies in all developed countries. Those governing bodies usually react
with disapproval on stupid pilot tricks (at airshows or otherwise) which put
the public at risk.

You can read, can't you? It was my point that the public wasn't put at risk.

Stefan

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
Kyle Boatright wrote:

danger. The folks you see on the ground are not spectators but airshow
staff or pilots.

Yes, and heaven knows that it is acceptable to put pilots and their
parked aircraft at an unnecessary risk.

The spectators are usually laypersons and can't judge the risks, so it's
the organisator's and the pilot's responibility to protect them.
Contributing airshow pilots however can judge the risks (I would hope!),
and if they decide to deliberately stand there during a flyby, it's their
choice.

Whether the pilot put himself in danger is another question. I can't and
won't judge it, but even if he were, that's what airshow pilots do
routinely.

No. Their goal is to entertain the crowd but NOT put themselves in
danger.

You can read, can't you? Where did I say it was their goal to endanger
themselves? It's their goal to entertain (and probably also a bit to show
off, I dare to assume), and to reach that goal, they accept to take risks.

BTW, they take routinely much bigger risks than that low flying airliner.
Flying inverted a couple of feet above the runway is *much* more risky,
yet done routinely at airshows and I've yet to see a post about that here.
Probably the most stupid thing done at airshows is the "inverted ribbon
cut", but you see it everywhere and nobody seems to care. E.g.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sCbwRzgJLhk. In that particular video you also
see one low level pull in which the pilot nearly stalls the plane. Most
dangerous at that altitude, but people don't even realize the situation.
The same goes for those stupid low level flicks shortly after take off.
E.g. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Uy0KkqFf_bU Extremely risky, because in a
flick you have *never* 100% control. Yet nobody seems to care. But an
airliner flying low... wow, *this* is going to cause discussions! It
reminds me somewhat of the quality of certain newspaper reports which have
been discussed here on a regular basis.

BTW, I don't say that I like such displays. Actually I hate them, and I
don't attend airshows for that very reason. I do attend aerobatic
competitions, though, because they are flown at a safe altitude. Besides,
the flying there is mostly better (i.e. more precise), albeit less
spectacular.

bodies in all developed countries. Those governing bodies usually react
with disapproval on stupid pilot tricks (at airshows or otherwise) which
put the public at risk.

You can read, can't you? It was my point that the public wasn't put at
risk.


The public WAS put at risk. Those spectators, some of whom may be pilots?
At risk. Anyone within a couple of miles of the airport? At risk. Clip a
wingtip and that multi-hundred thousand pound bundle of aluminum, steel,
titanium, and jet fuel could end up virtually anywhere within a few miles of
the airport.


Stefan