DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11436 posts, RR: 81 Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3028 times:
You gotta wonder how much trouble they got in when the YouTube video was viewed by the AdA leadership and they got the tail number.
It's spectacular, but a fairly worthless exercise that placed a very valuable piece of equipment, not to mention the extraordinarily expensively trained crew, at unnecessary risk.
Buss61 From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 37 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2963 times:
Quoting DL021 (Reply 2): It's spectacular, but a fairly worthless exercise that placed a very valuable piece of equipment, not to mention the extraordinarily expensively trained crew, at unnecessary risk.
I thought the video was pretty awesome myself, that crew new full well what they were doing.
Moose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2020 posts, RR: 12 Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2960 times:
Quoting Buss61 (Reply 3):
I thought the video was pretty awesome myself, that crew new full well what they were doing.
DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11436 posts, RR: 81 Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2866 times:
Quoting Buss61 (Reply 3): I thought the video was pretty awesome myself, that crew new full well what they were doing.
It was an awesome video...I didn't say it wasn't. The pilots are undoubtedly well trained. It was still an apparently unnecessary risk with a piece of equipment not really intended for that task. I can't imagine a military purpose for flying that low (where the wings could apparently hit the ground if you turn and bank too sharply or you could just be pancaked if a microburst or unusual thermal hit you. What if they lost an engine at that altitude or hit a bird? Poor judgement can be exercised by even the most qualified pilots.
This ain't like Tex Johnson doing barrel rolls at 10000 feet. He had time to recover if something happened and he was being fairly sedate...this is a high speed low altitude pass by guys who don't train for this with a fundamentally civilian airliner in air force grey.
Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 5): well... the B-52 took a lot more risk by flying low, slow and making turns and it stalled. The French KC-135 just flew low and fast.
True, the BUFF, however, has a military purpose for flying that low and the pilot trained for it regularly. Evident mistakes were made, and it proves that it's dangerous even if you train for it and are flying airplanes with characteristics for flying that way are well known.
It was a bad idea, probably even if the pilots were flying a planned training mission with that profile being called for. I'll bet they weren't, but if anyone knows different and can put up a good reason for it then I'm all ears.
KevinSmith From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2785 times:
Quoting Moose135 (Reply 4):
I'm sure this crew thought the same thing...
Interesting story behind that crash. Were you a SAC warrior? If so so surprised you didn't hear about it, no offense. I digress.
The pilot of the that a/c had a reputation as a hot shot. He had several documented incidents of putting his crew and airplane at risk (i.e crossing the top of ridges but less than 50ft). Fine for a maneuverable Mud hen but not so much for the decidedly unmaneuverable BUFF. The situation got so bad that the squadron DO or CC I believe, to his pilot that they were not to fly with him anymore, only he would. Unfortunately that decision ultimately cost him his life.
DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11436 posts, RR: 81 Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2754 times:
Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 7): I agree the French pilots took an awfull lot of risk (a birdstrike would really knack them) but at least they kept speed on it.
I'm certainly not insinuating that the Froggie pilots were less than competent fliers. They just used poor judgement unless that was a called for mission.
Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 8): The pilot of the that a/c had a reputation as a hot shot.
I read that someplace.....I guess there's some truth to the "no old AND bold pilots" adage....
Moose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2020 posts, RR: 12 Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2752 times:
Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 8): Interesting story behind that crash. Were you a SAC warrior? If so so surprised you didn't hear about it, no offense. I digress.
Yes, I flew the KC-135, and I'm quite familiar with that crash. My point was I'm sure that crew thought they knew what they were doing as well, and we saw how that turned out.
Sponsor Message: 
From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1027 posts, 
From Russia, joined Aug 2005, 170 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11436 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1113 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
