no more sporting event fly overs

[tom d. friedman]

due to the new & looming budget cuts that the federal government is initiating there will be no more military fly overs for sporting events. hopefully the private sector of warbird owners can pick up the ball, as it is very important to keep our military, military history, & love of country at the forefront of our values as a nation.

[cooper9411]

Good, it was a waste anyways. Most people in the stands did not have the courtesy to remove their hats during the anthem.

[aeroeng]

It seems like they could still do the flyovers if they coordinated them with their training flights. Kind of a dual purpose for training and advertising. Just my 2 cents (but I like the other comments too ).

aeroeng

[k5083]

I always thought these were creepy anyway. We were the only non-totalitarian country ever to regularly do military flyovers at sporting events.

August

[51fixer]

I always thought these were creepy anyway. We were the only non-totalitarian country ever to regularly do military flyovers at sporting events.

August

The Brits fly over major cities with WWII equip from time to time as well as their Red Arrows.
The Indian AF is starting a whole HF program restoring many of their relics to fly so they can do the same.

[Russ Blow]

Myself and my L 4 stand ready to fill the vacuum. I could do a flyover at a football game and catch the entire first half as I passed over.

[k5083]

You're correct Rich.

I was referring more to the current military hardware flyovers. Thrusting the current military in the face of the public at sporting events etc. is a characteristic practice of over-militarized dictatorships (I think the 1936 Olympics may have been the start of it), not commonly seen in democracies besides the U.S.

August

[Ztex]

The flyovers were always a no extra cost event in the first place...they are built into the training system and make a good time on target exercise for the aircrews.

[JohnB]

I always thought these were creepy anyway. We were the only non-totalitarian country ever to regularly do military flyovers at sporting events.
August

I guessed you missed the UK olympics...and the 1988 Olympics in Canada (2010 as well?)
Most nations with a decent sized AF do them...often at sporting events...ever see a world Cup event,? You might need to get out more often. :0

I was referring more to the current military hardware flyovers. Thrusting the current military in the face of the public at sporting events etc. is a characteristic practice of over-militarized dictatorships (I think the 1936 Olympics may have been the start of it), not commonly seen in democracies besides the U.S.

What do you think the Red Arrows fly, Spitfires?

The US flies current fighters because 1. unlike most countries, we can afford them and have some to spare and 2. Our trainers (T-38s anyway) are old.

[k5083]

They have been trotting them out for more of the really huge events. A disturbing trend, but at least it's usually limited to the display team of brightly colored trainers, which arguably represent national pride more generally, not just military strength. What you don't see, AFAIK, is a flight of Tornadoes over every Manchester United game or university cricket match. But I haven't been to the UK in a while. For all I know they're adopting the silliness more and more these days.

Mudge, personally I have no use for anthems or any other display of national vanity either. But that doesn't say something quite so unsavory about us.

Whatever my personal preferences, I don't advocate stopping these things if they truly cost little and are desired by the audience. Any country is better off being less in love with itself and with its military, but one can't make it better by squashing the outward expressions of these things. When and if people's values change, what they like to see will, too.

If something has to be in the air over the game, why must it have weapons poking out of it? Why not a quick maneuver or two by Sean Tucker, say?

August

[shrike]

If something has to be in the air over the game, why must it have weapons poking out of it? Why not a quick maneuver or two by Sean Tucker, say?

August

You know you just gave every personal injury lawyer in North America a hard on just by typing that...

[Mark Allen M]

Well August now you've done it! This thread is either going to continue to be an interesting conversation or get locked down before you can say "my gun is bigger than your gun" ...

why must it have weapons poking out of it?

Because America as a whole loves it's patriotism and high testosterone levels for 'bigger', 'faster', 'stronger', 'more powerful' and the proverbial "Our country can kick you country's *ss at anytime". Which always seems to get us in trouble globally more times than not.

But that's just my opinion ... better to sit this one out

[bdk]

With all the concerns over terrorism from the air, I would think that many public venues would feel safer with a military flypast. That would also mitigate any liability issue.

Isn't there a TFR over things like the super bowl?

[Craig59]

The flyovers were always a no extra cost event in the first place...they are built into the training system and make a good time on target exercise for the aircrews.

Dead-on, balls accurate. That's an industry term...

[RickH]

Legally, with the current FARs, civilians, flying experimental aircraft over large crowds is prohibited. It would be hard for civilians to pick up the slack without hearing from the FAA.