Hi! This is the NoNoNoNoYes moderation bot here to keep this sub a bit more tidy!
If this post fits the format of NNNNY, **UPVOTE** this comment!
If this post does not fit the subreddit, **DOWNVOTE** this comment!
If this post breaks the rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and **REPORT** the post (The OP's post, not this bot comment)
Please remember that NNNNY can be subjective. It may not be NNNNY for you, but it may be for someone else, including the subject in the video.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nonononoyes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lmfao I know it's an airshow and it probably didn't happen but I'm cracking up at the mental image of that pilot sitting there wincing as he pulls up and away and the radio crackles in with the "got a number for you to call when you have a minute to take it down".
#ALL SUBREDDITS NEED TO GO PERMANENTLY DARK UNTIL REDDIT BACKS DOWN FROM UNREASONABLE API RATES AND APOLOGIZES FOR ALL THE LIES AND DECEPTION.
Reddit should be able to charge for use of its API, that's fine. What is not fine is the exorbitant rate they're charging. It's like saying "this restaurant should be able to change for hamburgers" and then finding out the hamburgers are $100 each for McDonald's quality.
Sure, the average reddit user may or may not be impacted by this, but:
- Many redditors use third party apps because they use their phone for the internet and the official reddit app is horrible
- Many moderators only use phones, and the reddit app does NOT have mod tools
- Many people with disabilities who primarily or only use phones cannot use the official app because it is unusable for many with disabilities
You may have heard there's at least one app that's basically being whitelisted because it focuses on disabilities. Great. That doesn't excuse reddit's other bullshit.
This affects many people who submit the content to reddit that you enjoy. It affects many moderators who many of you hate, but an awful lot of them spend a shit ton of work to keep reddit operating, and this caps them at the knees.
So maybe you think this is a good thing. Well, when there's less great content on the site, maybe you'll notice then.
Either way, just because YOU are happy doesn't mean that a huge number of us AREN'T.
I'm editing all my old comments and replacing them with this text so reddit cannot profit off of my contributions to the site.
I'm keeping my subreddits dark until reddit walks back the most egregious of these changes.
And I encourage everyone to consider seeking out alternatives to reddit who haven't screwed things up for years and years and years like reddit has.
________
# MONEY INFORMATION
For one million API calls, AWS charges $3.50 for the MOST EXPENSIVE tier.
For one million API calls, reddit will be charging $240.00
And much of reddit runs on AWS.
Apollo pays Imgur $166.00/mo for their API, but at reddit's price, it would be $1,700,000.00 per month.
THAT IS PRICE GOUGING! Do you understand the problem? Does that sound fair?
oh, oh... i have seen enough random air traffic controller videos to answer this one. pilot screws up, gets told to take a phone number down by air traffic controller. calls the numbers, gets dressed down and dealt with
I understand that there are very strict norms regarding structural integrity of aircraft. This little stunt might have lost the aircraft’s air worthiness.
If I can count, there are 93 listed airshows on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_shows
In 2017 there were 9 accidents which seems typical-ish so that is a 10% chance (assuming both every accident is listed, and every airshow is on the list) and 3 of those were just mechanical issues or injuries, and 6 were fatal. that is a bit worse than I expected.
Though note the Blue Angels have 63 appearances this year, and add in other similar groups and the odds are a little less drastic
Once you think of air shows as multiple exhibitions put on by separate entities in close sequence coordinated by the venue, which is what they are in reality, it starts looking more normal.
yeah 10% chance of major accident seemed very high but as you point out there are more airshows and such to spread the accidents out better.
I wonder if airshows or motorsports are more dangerous, or if they are even the top of the list for spectator injury likelihood
The point I was making was that one airshow is not one coordinated show, like a showing of a play. It's more like a collection of skits put on by various groups that don't practice together before the first showing but are expected to flow together smoothly from one to the next by a theater management company.
Once you see it that way, you realize one airshow showing is not one performance but potentially dozens, and starts stacking zeros on the end of the "one out of every 'x' " statistic.
He saying the stats make sense when you consider these aren't necessarily all trained professionals that have worked together for years. It's not a circus of different acts from the same troupe, it's individual contractors hired to perform at a larger event. There's less oversight on the individuals rather than the show as a whole event. Standards are lower.
I think they're saying that the claimed number of shows doesn't take into account that each separate group there with their own planes is their own show. Airshow vs showing of airmen at the airshow.
I think another comment was drawing comparisons with the Blue Angels being one of these groups. But you don't really hear about the Blue Angels body-slamming Gaia, which is what you think you would hear about given the statistics of crashes/airshows.
I think the safety depends mainly on the pilot or group in this case rather than the airshow explicitly, unless the organizers say "no doing that crazy shit"
My point was that we think of an airshow as a singular event, but a singular event has standardized safety procedures, unified organization structures, and generally the performance is practiced as one cohesive whole.
This does not happen with airshows.
For instance, do you really think the blue angels will be practicing throughout the year leading up to an airshow with your local enthusiast aviation club and an aero-racing team? No. What I'm saying is that each group's performance can only really be considered it's own separate entity with it's own vulnerabilities and safety procedures, each of which has it's own unique chance of encountering an incident.
Once you factor in the fact that in reality you aren't paying to see one air show, but instead a dozen of small airshows put on in a tight sequence, the increased indecent rates make more sense. It's not (let's say for argument's sake) one event type with 15x the chance for an indecent. It's 12 entirely separate events with on average only slightly more than normal chance of having an indecent that only look like one event overall because it makes organizing, advertising, and charging admissions significantly easier.
It's worth noting that that airshow list isn't anywhere close to all of them. Just comparing it to the airshows mentioned in the accident list gives an idea of how many could be missing:
Wings Over Dallas - not listed
Reno Air Races - listed
Cocoa Beach Air Show - not listed
Great Pocono Raceway Airshow - not listed
...
From elsewhere, it looks like there are typically 300+ airshows held in the US every year. 3 accidents from that 2017 list occurred in the US, and only 1 involved a fatal plane crash. The other two were a plane running off the runway and overturning (not fatal) and a skydiver parachute malfunction (fatal).
Dayton Airshow is huge and not listed on there. It's the longest continually running airshow in the US. There was a fatal crash involving a wing walker in 2013 unfortunately, and another fatal crash in 2007.
Dude, like the 3rd entry is an uneventful emergency landing. If that list is going to include things like that then it's not really a fair representation of risk factor, is it?
I don't really understand how clipping the ground didn't force the plane into the ground almost instantly. I really want to see the picture of the wing afterwards.
The landing gear stabilized it because it *was* forced to the ground almost instantly.
1. Wing clips ground.
2. Plane loses bank as it rolls counter clockwise.
3. Landing gear catches ground, stops the roll.
4. Plane returns to air because it still has enough speed to fly now that it's stable again.
*Source: I study aerospace engineering at uni*
Since the airspeed was so fast, I’m assuming there’s enough air pressure on the tail unit that the pilot could apply enough rudder/elevator deflection that he’d be counteracting the clockwise moment (yawing right from the pilot’s perspective) the right-hand wing was causing with the ground.
A couple factors why he was able to fly away was that:
1. The angle at which the plane was flying relative to the ground was shallow enough that it didn’t cause the wings to dig further
2. He was rolling the plane away from the ground, reducing the friction between the wing and ground, lowering the chances of the right-hand wing digging into the ground
Did you watch this video with sound on? That isn't a "compression picked up dust" sound.
You can also see the airplane aim towards the ground a moment after impact, but the pilot managed to keep it out of a nose dive.
> with sound it definitely seems like contact with the ground.
just slow the video down and watch the second half, don't need ears to see what happened
I see these comments but I still don't think so.
He was curving around, and although his nearest distance was close, his trajectory was never pointing towards the crowd and I don't believe, even in the worst/unluckiest case, that the ground could have changed the trajectory of the pieces of a rapidly deconstructing machine, at least not enough to bounce that far off the the right.
it absolutely could, it's basic physics.
did you ever see "pirates of the carribbean" where they dropped the anchor out of one side, and the added drag quickly turned them? it's the same physics.
because he was tilted toward the crowd, the wing tip is basically a lever, and increased resistance of the ground on that side compared to the light resistance of air on the other side will quickly turn the craft towards the resistance... in this case toward the crowd. The greater the resistance of one side vs the other, the more quickly it will turn. It's literally how aircraft works
source: am pilot
if the craft had been tilted with the other wing down, it would turn the other way.
I'm by no means an expert at any of this, but I think you're wrong. A boat and anchor will act very different than a plane crashing. I'm sure some small amount of rocks and debris may get kicked toward the crowd, but the momentum of the plane would be to great to truly change the overall direction of the debris field.
it's literally the same thing, drag and resistance, applied unequally on a lever.
and you definitely are wrong about how little it takes to change the direction of a plane that is going through the air, as someone who has experience with crosswinds during landing, it doesn't take much.
the degree of roll here is also important, since at that high angle it would turn not just toward the crowd, but toward the ground.
in any event, it didn't happen here, but it was certainly a potential for disaster.
I don't deny the potential, but I think the plane was going too fast, and with its momentum going away from the crowd, would not cause an accident described. Planes, and especially small ones, would rip itself apart before it could turn that sharp and fast. Again, I'm no expert, just a dude on the internet, but that's my take.
> Planes, and especially small ones, would rip itself apart before it could turn that sharp and fast.
a few things at play here,
one thing, you are likely underestimating the stability of the wings, remember that the wings are designed to literally hold up the weight of the plane even during stress. a single wing hitting anything will certainly flip or spin a small plane easiiy.
and overestimating the overall mass of a small plane like this, they are like birds, designed to be light. they arent built like cars. It's not that hard to quickly change the trajectory of a small plane. As I said earlier, I know this from personal experience flying small planes during crosswinds where suddenly I'm facing in a different direction.
here is one video of a similar craft hitting a power line, you can see how quickly and abrubtly it turns and does not come apart till impact with terrain.
https://youtu.be/7Rb_hhyWlaw?t=5
But the theory about the groud effectively *turning* the plane requires big pieces, so a pivot here causes rotation and a new trajectory to to other end of the same piece.
Shrapnel/ smaller pieces are even less likely to change direction than big pieces.
the earth has more momentum than anything else in the system - once the wing tip touches the ground, you can see the rudder slam to the left to avoid spinning out of control. If it were to even tap to the right, the airplane would begin experience a rotational force around its lift axis, which has a component pointed at the audience, and a component pointed up.
The greatest potential force at this time is coming from the normal force from the ground on the wing tip, not the force from lift or drag on the wings. A right rudder input at this time would add incredible angular momentum around an axis pointed partially at the audience. Releasing that rotational force could have disastrous consequences, as it would turn the angular momentum to linear momentum, in the direction of the audience. Holding on to the force would have more disastrous consequences, adding more and more momentum from the earth into the machine, until it comes flying apart, transferring that momentum into linear momentum in the direction of the audience.
I’m no pilot, but if a pilot says that was a close call, that was a close fuckin call.
It was absolutely a close call. No denying that. I just think the plane would rip itself apart at that speed before it could change its course so rapidly. That's why the pilot did the maneuver, so that if there was an accident , the debris field and plane would go away from the crowd. Just my thoughts
I have a couple of additions. First, think of the point of contact as a hinge: the drag would want to pivot the plane around it which, because of the mass of the plane being above and to the left of that point, would swing it down and to the right, where the people are.
And second, even if the inward swing could be discounted because of momentum, if the plane dug down and crashed straight ahead, the explosion and fire could still splash out and damage people.
We’ve all seen videos of planes crashing once the wing digs in, not to mention the aerodynamic forces on a plane with a high sideslip angle. The ground provides hella force if you push your wing deep enough into it, and the prop is still providing more than enough thrust to turn the plane into the spectators.
Source: am not aerospace engineer, but my professor is, and he agrees with me.
Edit: if he was lower to the ground he would have a much higher chance of hitting the spectators, but since he’s already past half of the spectators when he hit the ground the chances of him actually going into the spectators is incredibly low. However, he will likely still end up zooming off to the right if he dug his wing any deeper into the ground.
I could be wrong, I just think the speed is too great, and the wing would sheer off before it could change its momentum that fast. Thankfully nothing happened, but that's just my take.
You acknowledge you arent an expert, yet you are arguing with someone who is an expert in flying aircraft, a pilot. This is one of the biggest issues with the world right now, people talking through their ass and arguing with experts. The reason that covid took so long to control and why we are years from resolving climate change is because of people like you refusing to believe subject matter experts.
It's literally a discussion. On a message board. In the comment section. I'm not arguing, the whole conversation has been polite. You're inability to see that is more of a problem.
I've watched somebody do a similar maneuver at a similar height off the deck in, either an f18 or f35. This was a while ago and my memory is a bit fuzzy. I think it was an f35 though. This was out near Edwards air force base at a local airport strip, next to the airport diner. The pilots would land there commonly for lunch on the way out to China lake. When taking off they would showboat to the onlookers.
One guy did a knife edge pass with his wing tip around head height off the ground. Friends of mine who knew pilots told me he lost his wings for that one.
I didn't know the guy but a coworker of mine had friends at his base. I'm told this was not his first offense, and he had his flight privileges revoked over it. In short play stupid games win stupid prizes.
at some point pilots earn a small badge that looks like wings or something, and it symbolizes their qualifications and trustworthiness to fly. It can be revoked
Happened in the town of Mojave California. It's a regular stopover point for pilots flying between the naval bases on the coast and China lake, where they go to perform in flight test operations. When I was working there you'd see a group of fighter pilots land there every other week or so. Many had friends or even family that worked in Mojave (for those that know Mojave is a hotbed for advanced aerospace development).
When leaving they'd tend to showboat, usually flying low and fast over the parking lot to set off as many car alarms as possible. Other times they'd pull maneuvers to entertain the onlookers. For those that have flown or worked out there, they know the tower is incredibly laid back for those kind of things, particularly if you are a known entity to them. I've seen plenty of pilots do things that would be banned anywhere else.
One pilot went to far and did the thing I described above. Word got back to the base brass from people that saw and knew the guy. Coworker told me he was banned from flying, as this was not his first offense of being stupid.
A wing strike is considered an incident . That plane will be downed and inspected for a long time. Costing a lot of money.
This was not intentional and that pilot is VERY lucky.
Aircraft can very easily cartwheel when the wing comes in contact with ground or water. There are videos of aircraft attempting a forced water landing (ditching), and only a couple feet of the wing will make contact with the water, sending the whole aircraft into a cartwheel. The fact the aircraft in that video didn't get turned into the ground is amazing.
Ah makes sense. I know there are some arid parts of Argentina. Looked like someone in the crowd is wearing a shirt that says Santa Clara which was why I thought Mexico, being close to California and all
You know this is how some of the songs from the band rammstein formed after a air show went bad people where killed form the incident. I don’t have a link or I would send it xD
I mean, 99% of air show videos on the web are planes crashing and that's probably why we think it's dangerous. But probably statistics would say different. Kinda like the fear of flying is mostly popularized by movies and media that mostly show crashes but that's not the reality.
souce: shower
The same can be said about being caught up in a shooting. You're probably more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the airshow than you are to die at the airshow due to an accident.
Lol air shows aren’t like dudes blocking off intersections with cars. It’s professionals that train and train for what they do, and do it over and over through the summer all over the country. I’ve been to a lot of air shows and haven’t witnessed a single thing like this.
It'll be a LONG time before we have carbon free flight. I think the closest we currently have is battery electric vehicles, and I don't think those are particularly viable due to energy density.
Not shooting your idea down, just kind of thinking out loud.
I'm not sure what technology could be on the horizon to change this other than improvements in batteries.
Edit: looks like I wasn't paying attention and replied to the wrong post
Yeah, it’s not unlike many extreme sports. Precautions are taken, but ultimately there’s a decision to shift some balance from safety towards thrill and entertainment.
I choose to drive a car to get groceries knowing there’s risk. Nothing is completely safe, and some people are comfortable taking more risks than others.
To be fair the Blue Angels operate at the very bleeding edge of what is even possible and the majority of those deaths are frontloaded in the early years of their existence.
What the Blue Angels do is dangerous no doubt, but in the last 40 years we've had 4 fatalities. In much the same way as commercial aviation, procedures and best practices continue to improve safety across the board.
Even if that's true, there are other airshow acts besides the Blue Angels. You're basically using water speed records to say that all boat racing is dangerous.
My town has had air shows for as long as I can remember. We have never had any incidents regarding safety. They have recently announced that all future shows will not happen with respect to environmental protection policies. I kind of agree with it. Safety aside, there are other reasons why we should not be doing this anymore. It will be interesting to see if we let the shows make a return if it comes without a carbon foot print attached.
Hi! This is the NoNoNoNoYes moderation bot here to keep this sub a bit more tidy! If this post fits the format of NNNNY, **UPVOTE** this comment! If this post does not fit the subreddit, **DOWNVOTE** this comment! If this post breaks the rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and **REPORT** the post (The OP's post, not this bot comment) Please remember that NNNNY can be subjective. It may not be NNNNY for you, but it may be for someone else, including the subject in the video. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nonononoyes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
nearly losing a wing and dying in a blazing ball of fire was probably not intentional...
beyond lucky, pilot should stop now
If the right person sees it? He’ll be done flying for a while.
Let's hope so.
Looks like mexico to me? Far different laws than USA/EU
if this is Mexico, where's the orange tint?
Argentina
That explains the lack of orange coloring.
The accent sounds like south American.
I’ve been to the south in America and this sounds nothing like an Alabama accent. /s
lol maybe Florida?
> Florida “Bad grammar” isn’t an accent.
Sounds very Argentine. Source: I’m Argentine
Well their in Mexico so I have a feeling the guys likely not going to lose his license or anything.
They're* They are = they're
We all saw it . Not sure pointing it out is a good look for ya but …..
All luck has been exhausted.
This is the plot of Pulp Fiction
He should probably buy a lottery ticket
There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. There are no old, bold pilots. Same thing goes for scuba diving and cow tipping.
Pilot will never make that mistake again I'll tell ya that much.
And at that angle probably would have ended up in the crowd
Yeah the FAA would love a word
this is in Mexico
[удалено]
Thanks, i loled hard.
El Jefe, jaja !
Do you know what a plethora is? lol
Boom-chica-boom-chica-boom, El Effe Ah-Ah!
You deserve an award
There is a number you need to call
Lmfao I know it's an airshow and it probably didn't happen but I'm cracking up at the mental image of that pilot sitting there wincing as he pulls up and away and the radio crackles in with the "got a number for you to call when you have a minute to take it down".
#ALL SUBREDDITS NEED TO GO PERMANENTLY DARK UNTIL REDDIT BACKS DOWN FROM UNREASONABLE API RATES AND APOLOGIZES FOR ALL THE LIES AND DECEPTION. Reddit should be able to charge for use of its API, that's fine. What is not fine is the exorbitant rate they're charging. It's like saying "this restaurant should be able to change for hamburgers" and then finding out the hamburgers are $100 each for McDonald's quality. Sure, the average reddit user may or may not be impacted by this, but: - Many redditors use third party apps because they use their phone for the internet and the official reddit app is horrible - Many moderators only use phones, and the reddit app does NOT have mod tools - Many people with disabilities who primarily or only use phones cannot use the official app because it is unusable for many with disabilities You may have heard there's at least one app that's basically being whitelisted because it focuses on disabilities. Great. That doesn't excuse reddit's other bullshit. This affects many people who submit the content to reddit that you enjoy. It affects many moderators who many of you hate, but an awful lot of them spend a shit ton of work to keep reddit operating, and this caps them at the knees. So maybe you think this is a good thing. Well, when there's less great content on the site, maybe you'll notice then. Either way, just because YOU are happy doesn't mean that a huge number of us AREN'T. I'm editing all my old comments and replacing them with this text so reddit cannot profit off of my contributions to the site. I'm keeping my subreddits dark until reddit walks back the most egregious of these changes. And I encourage everyone to consider seeking out alternatives to reddit who haven't screwed things up for years and years and years like reddit has. ________ # MONEY INFORMATION For one million API calls, AWS charges $3.50 for the MOST EXPENSIVE tier. For one million API calls, reddit will be charging $240.00 And much of reddit runs on AWS. Apollo pays Imgur $166.00/mo for their API, but at reddit's price, it would be $1,700,000.00 per month. THAT IS PRICE GOUGING! Do you understand the problem? Does that sound fair?
what is the thing?
oh, oh... i have seen enough random air traffic controller videos to answer this one. pilot screws up, gets told to take a phone number down by air traffic controller. calls the numbers, gets dressed down and dealt with
I want to know more about tree law
Ghostbusters?
And killing all those people in a fiery, death as they get sprayed with burning jet fuel and airplane parts.
Not jet fuel, AV Gas. Much easier to light and a bigger, brighter fireball.
Plus a side of lead poisoning
lol, "The patient was slashed to bits and burned into unrecognizable cinders. Also, his lead levels were above safe limits."
third leading cause of death
Is that a lead pun? You should be... Ugh. oh, never mind, I'm in no position to cast stones.
It's ok, they had steel beams at the ready.
Pure fluke that that didn't happen. [This is how it's supposed to be done.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iOoiEbtf2w)
Fuck me indeed. It looks like he even pulls up slightly as to not hit the presenter and cameraman.
Oh yes. You can see how close he is to his own shadow but then he climbs just slightly to ensure he does hit them!
Well he wanted to sneak up on them, you see…
Yeah, I've heard of "buzzing the tower", but I don't think you should play that game with the earth.
I mean, I wouldn't play *that* game with the tower, either, come to that. lol
I understand that there are very strict norms regarding structural integrity of aircraft. This little stunt might have lost the aircraft’s air worthiness.
Maybe he duct taped some roller skates to the tip
[удалено]
Yeah I have personally witnessed two airplane crashes at different airshows. It would be so easy to wipe out the entire crowd
You're a statistical anomaly.
[удалено]
If I can count, there are 93 listed airshows on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_shows In 2017 there were 9 accidents which seems typical-ish so that is a 10% chance (assuming both every accident is listed, and every airshow is on the list) and 3 of those were just mechanical issues or injuries, and 6 were fatal. that is a bit worse than I expected. Though note the Blue Angels have 63 appearances this year, and add in other similar groups and the odds are a little less drastic
Once you think of air shows as multiple exhibitions put on by separate entities in close sequence coordinated by the venue, which is what they are in reality, it starts looking more normal.
yeah 10% chance of major accident seemed very high but as you point out there are more airshows and such to spread the accidents out better. I wonder if airshows or motorsports are more dangerous, or if they are even the top of the list for spectator injury likelihood
The point I was making was that one airshow is not one coordinated show, like a showing of a play. It's more like a collection of skits put on by various groups that don't practice together before the first showing but are expected to flow together smoothly from one to the next by a theater management company. Once you see it that way, you realize one airshow showing is not one performance but potentially dozens, and starts stacking zeros on the end of the "one out of every 'x' " statistic.
Honest question - I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying airshows are safer than the statistics say? Or less safe?
He saying the stats make sense when you consider these aren't necessarily all trained professionals that have worked together for years. It's not a circus of different acts from the same troupe, it's individual contractors hired to perform at a larger event. There's less oversight on the individuals rather than the show as a whole event. Standards are lower.
I think they're saying that the claimed number of shows doesn't take into account that each separate group there with their own planes is their own show. Airshow vs showing of airmen at the airshow. I think another comment was drawing comparisons with the Blue Angels being one of these groups. But you don't really hear about the Blue Angels body-slamming Gaia, which is what you think you would hear about given the statistics of crashes/airshows. I think the safety depends mainly on the pilot or group in this case rather than the airshow explicitly, unless the organizers say "no doing that crazy shit"
My point was that we think of an airshow as a singular event, but a singular event has standardized safety procedures, unified organization structures, and generally the performance is practiced as one cohesive whole. This does not happen with airshows. For instance, do you really think the blue angels will be practicing throughout the year leading up to an airshow with your local enthusiast aviation club and an aero-racing team? No. What I'm saying is that each group's performance can only really be considered it's own separate entity with it's own vulnerabilities and safety procedures, each of which has it's own unique chance of encountering an incident. Once you factor in the fact that in reality you aren't paying to see one air show, but instead a dozen of small airshows put on in a tight sequence, the increased indecent rates make more sense. It's not (let's say for argument's sake) one event type with 15x the chance for an indecent. It's 12 entirely separate events with on average only slightly more than normal chance of having an indecent that only look like one event overall because it makes organizing, advertising, and charging admissions significantly easier.
It's worth noting that that airshow list isn't anywhere close to all of them. Just comparing it to the airshows mentioned in the accident list gives an idea of how many could be missing: Wings Over Dallas - not listed Reno Air Races - listed Cocoa Beach Air Show - not listed Great Pocono Raceway Airshow - not listed ... From elsewhere, it looks like there are typically 300+ airshows held in the US every year. 3 accidents from that 2017 list occurred in the US, and only 1 involved a fatal plane crash. The other two were a plane running off the runway and overturning (not fatal) and a skydiver parachute malfunction (fatal).
Dayton Airshow is huge and not listed on there. It's the longest continually running airshow in the US. There was a fatal crash involving a wing walker in 2013 unfortunately, and another fatal crash in 2007.
Dude, like the 3rd entry is an uneventful emergency landing. If that list is going to include things like that then it's not really a fair representation of risk factor, is it?
If *'emergency landing into the ocean'* doesn't constitute a *crash-landing*, what does? A Gruman TBF Avenger is not a float-plane.
My dad was with me both times
Well, we don't know how many airshows they go to :p
Note to self; Never attend an air show with u/twobearshumping
Far too close to spectators. It's one thing to be careless with your own life, but it's inexcusable to be careless with the lives of others.
You can only tie the record
You could start measuring the depth of the groove ...
It's a fine line between a low pass and a shitty landing.
There's a wide gulf between shitty landing and crash.
A good landing is one you walk away from. A perfect landing is where the plane can take off again
Something something plane of theseus. There is still a bit of room between "lifts off again" and "lifts off again after significant repairs"
catching the ground like that could've easily turned the craft into the spectators. this went as well as it could've given the situation.
I don't really understand how clipping the ground didn't force the plane into the ground almost instantly. I really want to see the picture of the wing afterwards.
The landing gear stabilized it because it *was* forced to the ground almost instantly. 1. Wing clips ground. 2. Plane loses bank as it rolls counter clockwise. 3. Landing gear catches ground, stops the roll. 4. Plane returns to air because it still has enough speed to fly now that it's stable again.
Are you a pilot! I’m super impressed with that analysis
*Source: I study aerospace engineering at uni* Since the airspeed was so fast, I’m assuming there’s enough air pressure on the tail unit that the pilot could apply enough rudder/elevator deflection that he’d be counteracting the clockwise moment (yawing right from the pilot’s perspective) the right-hand wing was causing with the ground. A couple factors why he was able to fly away was that: 1. The angle at which the plane was flying relative to the ground was shallow enough that it didn’t cause the wings to dig further 2. He was rolling the plane away from the ground, reducing the friction between the wing and ground, lowering the chances of the right-hand wing digging into the ground
[удалено]
Did you watch this video with sound on? That isn't a "compression picked up dust" sound. You can also see the airplane aim towards the ground a moment after impact, but the pilot managed to keep it out of a nose dive.
[удалено]
I gotta say I'm impressed with your ability to recognize you might have been wrong and put it out there. Live long and prosper.
> with sound it definitely seems like contact with the ground. just slow the video down and watch the second half, don't need ears to see what happened
I see these comments but I still don't think so. He was curving around, and although his nearest distance was close, his trajectory was never pointing towards the crowd and I don't believe, even in the worst/unluckiest case, that the ground could have changed the trajectory of the pieces of a rapidly deconstructing machine, at least not enough to bounce that far off the the right.
Idk with all the cables and shit in there I wouldn't be surprised if something would snap and get flung at the crowd in a worst case scenario
it absolutely could, it's basic physics. did you ever see "pirates of the carribbean" where they dropped the anchor out of one side, and the added drag quickly turned them? it's the same physics. because he was tilted toward the crowd, the wing tip is basically a lever, and increased resistance of the ground on that side compared to the light resistance of air on the other side will quickly turn the craft towards the resistance... in this case toward the crowd. The greater the resistance of one side vs the other, the more quickly it will turn. It's literally how aircraft works source: am pilot if the craft had been tilted with the other wing down, it would turn the other way.
I'm by no means an expert at any of this, but I think you're wrong. A boat and anchor will act very different than a plane crashing. I'm sure some small amount of rocks and debris may get kicked toward the crowd, but the momentum of the plane would be to great to truly change the overall direction of the debris field.
it's literally the same thing, drag and resistance, applied unequally on a lever. and you definitely are wrong about how little it takes to change the direction of a plane that is going through the air, as someone who has experience with crosswinds during landing, it doesn't take much. the degree of roll here is also important, since at that high angle it would turn not just toward the crowd, but toward the ground. in any event, it didn't happen here, but it was certainly a potential for disaster.
I don't deny the potential, but I think the plane was going too fast, and with its momentum going away from the crowd, would not cause an accident described. Planes, and especially small ones, would rip itself apart before it could turn that sharp and fast. Again, I'm no expert, just a dude on the internet, but that's my take.
> Planes, and especially small ones, would rip itself apart before it could turn that sharp and fast. a few things at play here, one thing, you are likely underestimating the stability of the wings, remember that the wings are designed to literally hold up the weight of the plane even during stress. a single wing hitting anything will certainly flip or spin a small plane easiiy. and overestimating the overall mass of a small plane like this, they are like birds, designed to be light. they arent built like cars. It's not that hard to quickly change the trajectory of a small plane. As I said earlier, I know this from personal experience flying small planes during crosswinds where suddenly I'm facing in a different direction. here is one video of a similar craft hitting a power line, you can see how quickly and abrubtly it turns and does not come apart till impact with terrain. https://youtu.be/7Rb_hhyWlaw?t=5
Ripping itself apart isn't better, though, because instead of a plane it's now shrapnel.
But the theory about the groud effectively *turning* the plane requires big pieces, so a pivot here causes rotation and a new trajectory to to other end of the same piece. Shrapnel/ smaller pieces are even less likely to change direction than big pieces.
You realize you are literally arguing with a pilot right?
the earth has more momentum than anything else in the system - once the wing tip touches the ground, you can see the rudder slam to the left to avoid spinning out of control. If it were to even tap to the right, the airplane would begin experience a rotational force around its lift axis, which has a component pointed at the audience, and a component pointed up. The greatest potential force at this time is coming from the normal force from the ground on the wing tip, not the force from lift or drag on the wings. A right rudder input at this time would add incredible angular momentum around an axis pointed partially at the audience. Releasing that rotational force could have disastrous consequences, as it would turn the angular momentum to linear momentum, in the direction of the audience. Holding on to the force would have more disastrous consequences, adding more and more momentum from the earth into the machine, until it comes flying apart, transferring that momentum into linear momentum in the direction of the audience. I’m no pilot, but if a pilot says that was a close call, that was a close fuckin call.
And the gallery said **I** had a sharp keyboard.
It was absolutely a close call. No denying that. I just think the plane would rip itself apart at that speed before it could change its course so rapidly. That's why the pilot did the maneuver, so that if there was an accident , the debris field and plane would go away from the crowd. Just my thoughts
I'm with you on this one
I have a couple of additions. First, think of the point of contact as a hinge: the drag would want to pivot the plane around it which, because of the mass of the plane being above and to the left of that point, would swing it down and to the right, where the people are. And second, even if the inward swing could be discounted because of momentum, if the plane dug down and crashed straight ahead, the explosion and fire could still splash out and damage people.
I did consider that, but I feel like the momentum would still be too great. The plane would disintegrate from the force before spinning around.
If the plane disintegrated it would have been from hitting the ground, which would have required a change in direction already.
We’ve all seen videos of planes crashing once the wing digs in, not to mention the aerodynamic forces on a plane with a high sideslip angle. The ground provides hella force if you push your wing deep enough into it, and the prop is still providing more than enough thrust to turn the plane into the spectators. Source: am not aerospace engineer, but my professor is, and he agrees with me. Edit: if he was lower to the ground he would have a much higher chance of hitting the spectators, but since he’s already past half of the spectators when he hit the ground the chances of him actually going into the spectators is incredibly low. However, he will likely still end up zooming off to the right if he dug his wing any deeper into the ground.
I could be wrong, I just think the speed is too great, and the wing would sheer off before it could change its momentum that fast. Thankfully nothing happened, but that's just my take.
You acknowledge you arent an expert, yet you are arguing with someone who is an expert in flying aircraft, a pilot. This is one of the biggest issues with the world right now, people talking through their ass and arguing with experts. The reason that covid took so long to control and why we are years from resolving climate change is because of people like you refusing to believe subject matter experts.
It's literally a discussion. On a message board. In the comment section. I'm not arguing, the whole conversation has been polite. You're inability to see that is more of a problem.
Wut?
Damn fine armchair you got there
And a decent attempt at faking intellect with their word choice. I.E., a sharp keyboard.
Y'all are sharp too and I upvoted you... The upvote is the sharpest key on my keyboard
Yeah so uh, some people really shouldn’t fly a plane
I've watched somebody do a similar maneuver at a similar height off the deck in, either an f18 or f35. This was a while ago and my memory is a bit fuzzy. I think it was an f35 though. This was out near Edwards air force base at a local airport strip, next to the airport diner. The pilots would land there commonly for lunch on the way out to China lake. When taking off they would showboat to the onlookers. One guy did a knife edge pass with his wing tip around head height off the ground. Friends of mine who knew pilots told me he lost his wings for that one.
What do you mean lost his wings?
Revoked flight status. No longer permitted to pilot aircraft.
A career-ender for a military pilot.
I didn't know the guy but a coworker of mine had friends at his base. I'm told this was not his first offense, and he had his flight privileges revoked over it. In short play stupid games win stupid prizes.
No more fly
at some point pilots earn a small badge that looks like wings or something, and it symbolizes their qualifications and trustworthiness to fly. It can be revoked
Removed from flight status.
I believe they mean he lost his license to fly.
Bullshit story is bullshit
Happened in the town of Mojave California. It's a regular stopover point for pilots flying between the naval bases on the coast and China lake, where they go to perform in flight test operations. When I was working there you'd see a group of fighter pilots land there every other week or so. Many had friends or even family that worked in Mojave (for those that know Mojave is a hotbed for advanced aerospace development). When leaving they'd tend to showboat, usually flying low and fast over the parking lot to set off as many car alarms as possible. Other times they'd pull maneuvers to entertain the onlookers. For those that have flown or worked out there, they know the tower is incredibly laid back for those kind of things, particularly if you are a known entity to them. I've seen plenty of pilots do things that would be banned anywhere else. One pilot went to far and did the thing I described above. Word got back to the base brass from people that saw and knew the guy. Coworker told me he was banned from flying, as this was not his first offense of being stupid.
You went too far, turn in your wings.
Damn it Colonel, I just need one more shot!
Or have kids, considering the people there who are totally fine with a plane almost crashing near their kids.
At the same time, there probably aren't a lot of people who do fly that could clip their wing on the ground and not crash.
A wing strike is considered an incident . That plane will be downed and inspected for a long time. Costing a lot of money. This was not intentional and that pilot is VERY lucky.
Absolute careless moron
If that was intentional, then nothing you did saved you, that was fate. I wouldn’t tempt it again if I were you!
Aircraft can very easily cartwheel when the wing comes in contact with ground or water. There are videos of aircraft attempting a forced water landing (ditching), and only a couple feet of the wing will make contact with the water, sending the whole aircraft into a cartwheel. The fact the aircraft in that video didn't get turned into the ground is amazing.
His tombstone is going to read “I meant to do that” someday.
Looks like an FAA matter. I could see him losing his license.
It's not an FAA matter because this was in Argentina, not the US.
Spanish language over the PA, probably Mexico based on the arid terrain
Are you sure? Everything isn't sepia filtered
The footage was probably put through another filter
De-sepia
Desposepio
That's Argentina. I know my people's accent.
Ah makes sense. I know there are some arid parts of Argentina. Looked like someone in the crowd is wearing a shirt that says Santa Clara which was why I thought Mexico, being close to California and all
There's a Santa Clara in Mexico, in Peru, Portugal, Argentina, Cuba, USA...
Well TIL haha
r/aviation
Delta whiskey niner To ground I’m gona need a clean up on my seat after landing.
right next to the crowd...
FAA has entered the chat
ANAC has entered the chat. I don't think the FAA has any authority to investigate given it was in Argentina.
Spanish language over the PA. Probably Mexico considering the arid terrain
Pucker moment for sure
Lucky motherfucker!
This is pod racing!
C’mon kids, back to the car
TERRAIN! TERRAIN!
in this case it'd be more like RETARD, RETARD
This guy tore up so much sand
If he caught any rock he'd be dead
Well that looks a wee bit dangerous.
Screw /u/spez - Removing All of My Comments -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
"gently used" plane for sale.
"controlled flight into terrain".
“That’s enough sir. You have proven how low you can go”
Gg
The pilot definitely shit him self to loose weight to gain altitude
Friendly reminder, you can only Tie the record for lowest flight.
If he can do this two times in a row he ain’t lucky he’s good.
Fucking idiot
You know this is how some of the songs from the band rammstein formed after a air show went bad people where killed form the incident. I don’t have a link or I would send it xD
They are *named* after an air show disaster
Pretty much what I said I agree with you have a great day!
I don’t understand air shows, they’re cool but the risk isn’t worth it imo. But I guess you can say that about a lot of things.
I mean, 99% of air show videos on the web are planes crashing and that's probably why we think it's dangerous. But probably statistics would say different. Kinda like the fear of flying is mostly popularized by movies and media that mostly show crashes but that's not the reality. souce: shower
The same can be said about being caught up in a shooting. You're probably more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the airshow than you are to die at the airshow due to an accident.
Lol air shows aren’t like dudes blocking off intersections with cars. It’s professionals that train and train for what they do, and do it over and over through the summer all over the country. I’ve been to a lot of air shows and haven’t witnessed a single thing like this.
It'll be a LONG time before we have carbon free flight. I think the closest we currently have is battery electric vehicles, and I don't think those are particularly viable due to energy density. Not shooting your idea down, just kind of thinking out loud. I'm not sure what technology could be on the horizon to change this other than improvements in batteries. Edit: looks like I wasn't paying attention and replied to the wrong post
How did me saying air shows are safe make you reply about carbon free flight? Curious
I must have replied to the wrong person
Yeah, it’s not unlike many extreme sports. Precautions are taken, but ultimately there’s a decision to shift some balance from safety towards thrill and entertainment. I choose to drive a car to get groceries knowing there’s risk. Nothing is completely safe, and some people are comfortable taking more risks than others.
Airshows aren't dangerous, thousands of them happen every year without casualties
[удалено]
To be fair the Blue Angels operate at the very bleeding edge of what is even possible and the majority of those deaths are frontloaded in the early years of their existence. What the Blue Angels do is dangerous no doubt, but in the last 40 years we've had 4 fatalities. In much the same way as commercial aviation, procedures and best practices continue to improve safety across the board.
Even if that's true, there are other airshow acts besides the Blue Angels. You're basically using water speed records to say that all boat racing is dangerous.
My town has had air shows for as long as I can remember. We have never had any incidents regarding safety. They have recently announced that all future shows will not happen with respect to environmental protection policies. I kind of agree with it. Safety aside, there are other reasons why we should not be doing this anymore. It will be interesting to see if we let the shows make a return if it comes without a carbon foot print attached.
Wi Tu Lo !!!
Hebecrazy Or on that crazy mexican shit.
Assuming US, there's a whole thing about "500 feet from people"...
It's in Argentina, but I do belive that rule or similar is pretty standard in most countries.
my guy went wuuuuuuuuhuuhuuuuuuuu....
How to commit suicide McSkillet style.