Usnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 54 Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 7346 times:
Quoting Dc1030guy (Reply 1): Believable, and cool, but just really stupid!
You're kidding, right? This probably wasn't just some pilots screwing around. Tactical training often requires low-level practice to simulate avoiding enemy radar. Its also very common to fly low and fast over beaches because the waves produce thermals that disrupt other detection devices.
This wasn't stupid at all. And the blacked out part of the helmet was probably because these guys are still active duty. You wouldn't want the identities of active duty fighter pilots to be released like that.
MissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 7327 times:
Biggest risk here is from bird strike, & that's no worse at 20 feet than it is at 200 feet. The low level roll at the end is a bit riskier though.
Every air force sets their own regulations for low level training flights.
Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 3): And the blacked out part of the helmet was probably because these guys are still active duty. You wouldn't want the identities of active duty fighter pilots to be released like that.
I've seen names of active duty pilots on the newscasts before. Could his helmet have been blacked out because the filming was unauthorized, i.e., they were having a bit of fun by getting it on home video? Also, they appear to be French military aircraft so I guess may depends on what regulations exist there.
Canon 5D Mark II, 5D + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS + EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II + Tamron AF28-75mm f/2.8
Usnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 54 Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 7252 times:
Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 5): I've seen names of active duty pilots on the newscasts before.
I was about to respond to this in my previous post, because I had a feeling you would ask it.
It just depends. The names you see in the media reports or on television shows are usually ones that have been authorized for release. This could have been an official video and those names may not have been authorized for release.
Also, its not uncommon for squadrons to put together inspirational videos for other pilots and to recruit pilots in training for their specific airframe. This could have been an authorized video to make for the squadron, but not for release outside of the military. This would explain the blacked out helmets.
However, while there's always the chance that they were screwing around, the video quality seems like it was done for a reason. Plus, this happens quite a bit, so it really wouldn't be considered screwing around since these low-level training flights a part of training routines.
JeffSFO From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 820 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7063 times:
Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 6): It just depends. The names you see in the media reports or on television shows are usually ones that have been authorized for release. This could have been an official video and those names may not have been authorized for release.
Also, its not uncommon for squadrons to put together inspirational videos for other pilots and to recruit pilots in training for their specific airframe. This could have been an authorized video to make for the squadron, but not for release outside of the military. This would explain the blacked out helmets.
However, while there's always the chance that they were screwing around, the video quality seems like it was done for a reason. Plus, this happens quite a bit, so it really wouldn't be considered screwing around since these low-level training flights a part of training routines.
Thanks for the info on that. After September 11, 2001, I noticed on the TV news that the surnames of military pilots involved with Operation Enduring Freedom were censored for security purposes. However, not so long afterwards it seems that that precaution was dropped, even during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The reason why I remember this at all is that I was surprised to see that the pilot surnames got authorized for release, even during combat operations.
Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 5): Also, they appear to be French military aircraft so I guess may depends on what regulations exist there.
Bad typo here. What I meant to say was, "Also, they appear to be French military aircraft so I guess it depends on what regulations exist there."
-Jeff
Canon 5D Mark II, 5D + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS + EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II + Tamron AF28-75mm f/2.8
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6942 times:
Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 5): I've seen names of active duty pilots on the newscasts before. Could his helmet have been blacked out because the filming was unauthorized, i.e., they were having a bit of fun by getting it on home video? Also, they appear to be French military aircraft so I guess may depends on what regulations exist there.
Those helmets have some serious anti-glare protection so they're almost opaque from the outside.
Nothing weird about that.
And not all airforces allow pilots to personalise their helmets or aircraft, apparently the French don't.
These appear to be professionally made videos rather than someone's home video.
I think I recognise several scenes from aviation videos I have, it appears likely the person putting this clip together took scenes from several sources (videos, DVDs, maybe airforce websites) and put them together.
As to the low flying, the Mirage 2000 cured most of the problems plaguing the Mirage III and V.
A lot of the scenes in this video of course show Jaguars which are designed as low level penetration bombers, and Mirage F1 aircraft which have pretty good handling characteristics as well.
I think I even saw a few Italian AMXs, which would never appear in a French airforce production (just like the English titles wouldn't likely appear).
Bsergonomics From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6731 times:
Re: the helmets.
They are not 'blacked out' for any security reasons. A military helmet has two visors: one tinted and one clear. The clear visor is on the inside. You should always fly with the clear visor down, to protect you in case of a bird strike on the canopy, loss of the canopy, the need to eject suddenly or any other reason for loss of canopy integrity. The outer visor is tinted, for when you are flying in sunny conditions. The level of tinting varies between nations but it is usually quite dark.
As for the low flying... It's possibly the best bit about being a military pilot. It is a standard technique to avoid radar and to minimise the risk from ground fire. There are very few places where you can practise flying 'on the deck' over land (in the UK, the minimum altitude for military flights is 250 feet AGL), so the only place where you can reasonably practise very low flying is over the sea (even then, there are strict rules and ranges). Great video, which makes one feel... jealous!
The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
Usnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 54 Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6698 times:
Quoting Bsergonomics (Reply 11): They are not 'blacked out' for any security reasons. A military helmet has two visors: one tinted and one clear.
Actually, no. And this isn't what we're talking about.
Some standard issue helmets can have both visors put in, but most have an interchangable feature where you have to replace them whenever you know what type of flight you'll be making.
However, this isn't what we're talking about. I thought the same thing at first and was about to respond about the glareshield, but I re-played it and noticed that there is a brief black rectangle that is over the top of the helmet. Look at the video again and you will see. This has nothing to do with the visor.
Bsergonomics From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6480 times:
Usnseallt82: Yes. OK, you got me. That's what comes from watching videos late at night... However, the RAF (and, I'm told, also the USAF and USN fast jet pilots - correct me if I'm wrong) use the two visor system.
====
I replayed the video on slow motion and the black rectangle seems to cover only what appears to be a 'spy camera' mounted on top of the helmet. As far as personnel security is concerned, this would seem to be of little importance. As far as national security, on the other hand, it comes either under the 'Official Secrets' title (at worst) or under the 'Need To Know' principle (at best). It could have come from a test & evaluation squadron, or it could be that the camera was mounted by the pilot (breaking strict regulations in the process). I would have said that it was probably the latter, in that it is visible for about half a second before the rectangle appears, showing an 'amateurish' approach to both video production and security. That said, after the Pentagon's efforts at censoring the report on the italian secret service agent killed in Iraq, anything's possible...
The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13368 posts, RR: 64 Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6412 times:
AFIAK, German Luftwaffe Tornado pilots fly down to 100 ft AGL over land during training in Canada (Goose Bay). But this is what the Tornado has been designed for, to fly really low under Soviet air defense radar.
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 11 Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6277 times:
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 17): AFIAK, German Luftwaffe Tornado pilots fly down to 100 ft AGL over land during training in Canada (Goose Bay). But this is what the Tornado has been designed for, to fly really low under Soviet air defense radar.
Yup, I have a great 20 minute video of that, but I don't remember where I downloaded it from...
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1357 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6120 times:
As I recall, Chuck Yeager wrote in his biography that he flew low over the dry lakes and found that ground effect prevented the aircraft from contacting the ground -- that he could give it considerable forward stick and it wouldn't drop that last bit. So maybe it's not quite as dangerous as it looks.
SkySurfer From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 1134 posts, RR: 14 Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5945 times:
Nice to see the jag's down at low level doing what they're good at......in 1995 i was in France at Le St. Michael (spelt right?) and i watched a Jag 4 ship approach at low level and then pull up over and around the 'castle'...they did this 4 times and i'll admit, i was impressed.
Cheers+
ps, anyone remember the RAF jags in the Gulf with a sidewinder above each wing? What a sight
In the dark you can't see ugly, but you can feel fat
JeffSFO From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 820 posts, RR: 5 Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5847 times:
Here's a short video that I haven't seen before of a very low flyby:
Sponsor Message: 
From Belgium, joined Dec 2003, 800 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 63 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3542 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 499 posts, 
What a sight
From Austria, joined Apr 2001, 573 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
