Low Pass!!!!!

Fouga23 · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:02 am

VERY dangerous and I hope he gets grounded!

davidbray · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:40 pm

warbird2 wrote:

davidbray wrote:

So obviously if its not against the rules, it is okay to go ahead and be a individual of questionable judgement? There are no rules against me hitting my head against a brick wall, you don't see me doing it. There are plenty of other things that aren't against the rules, should we all start doing things just because there is no rule against it? That has to be the worst reasoning behind a low flyby I've ever heard. The Argentine flyby was reckless and dangerous to those in the plane and especially those on the ground.

Just because you do not have the skill or ability to pull off something like the pilots in question do, does not mean that they do not know what they are doing. Go ahead and hit your head against the wall if you want but that is not going to make your example any more relevant. People that fly very low to the ground on a regular basis get very good at doing just that. Just like people that drag their knees on the pavement when making turns on a motorcycle get good at that as well. Those that do not choose to do it always seem to be the ones saying how dangerous it is.

People do not get to fly that low in the USAF. There are rules against crews doing it or I promise you would be seeing much more interesting videos on youtube. Is it dangerous? Yes it is certainly more dangerous in many respects than flying at altitude and it certainly is not something that every single pilot has the skill to pull off. But I fail to see how either of the videos we are talking about put anybody in danger, other than the people in the plane. The L-29 went right down the runway, nothing to hit but the ground. The other guys on the really cool pass did not seem to be tied to the ground! It sure did look like they were enjoying it. I would say that they knew the risk and chose to take it.

There are people calling for these pilot's tickets on this thread and it did not even happen on this continent. Maybe it is not against the regulations to do it where they are.

Nope you are right I don't have the skill or ability to fly like that. If I did, I hope that I would be more RESPONSIBLE than the pilots in question. Another thing has become very clear to me though. I am also very glad that you sir, are not a pilot. You would have killed someone, or yourself at this point. Because as long as it isn't against any rules it is fair game in your book.

You know what the reaction time is for someone to start moving when a 400 mph, 8000 lb bullet is coming at you? Oh and lets not forget that since they were no more than 5 feet off the ground during the start of their pass, a nice little gust of wind, bump going across the taxiway, whatever and the plane is now skidding across the ground in a nice big fireball. Of course at that point I'm guessing we wouldn't be having nearly as long of a debate on this because there would be no video to show how "cool" the pass was. Only aftermath pictures and public outrage after, from the looks of the HuD tape, a dozen or more people were killed when a plane careened into them while trying to tie the record for lowest low pass ever.

Please do us all a favor, never, ever get your pilot's license. If you do, stay away from warbirds. That type of flying, whether against rules or not, is reckless.

Ztex · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:31 pm

Cessna172RG wrote:

I was there too (during EAA Argentina's 30th Annual Convention) and the Delfin never touched the grass. Here is a video of that day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnWiJL0U ... re=related

I found this video of the same pass...
http://youtu.be/nFbIyctcUgs

Another angle
http://youtu.be/27Ve6dSLZRQ

Was this a missed approach after an accidental nearly gear up landing?

Looks that way to me...hmmm

If not it is a stunt that could have ended badly Very low and Very slow...you just never know what's gonna happen. Not good idea.

LadyO2Pilot · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:01 pm

IMHO after seeing the first video posted.......go around due to no gear. I can't talk about low passes in jets but don't see many low passes with flaps deployed. Video Zane posted convinces me even more that it was an aborted landing/go around for lack of gear.

Ken · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:39 pm

warbird2 wrote:

The guy in the B-52 did not kill himself and everyone on his crew by doing low passes.

Small point, but it is an often forgotten detail that the B-52 crashed when Lt Col Holland attempted an unplanned 360 on the downwind to create spacing for another airplane during a break in their airshow practice. It's plausible that the crew let their guard down in that moment.

I'm not defending the pilot - the maneuver was obviously too aggressive and the results are clear, but it's not like the airplane was making a tight, diving approach to a low pass ... it was an unplanned "simple 360" thrown in off the cuff. To me that's the heart of an even greater lesson to be learned from this mishap.

Ken

warbird2 · **Joined:** Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:03 am **Posts:** 173

davidbray wrote:

Nope you are right I don't have the skill or ability to fly like that. If I did, I hope that I would be more RESPONSIBLE than the pilots in question. Another thing has become very clear to me though. I am also very glad that you sir, are not a pilot. You would have killed someone, or yourself at this point. Because as long as it isn't against any rules it is fair game in your book.

You know what the reaction time is for someone to start moving when a 400 mph, 8000 lb bullet is coming at you? Oh and lets not forget that since they were no more than 5 feet off the ground during the start of their pass, a nice little gust of wind, bump going across the taxiway, whatever and the plane is now skidding across the ground in a nice big fireball. Of course at that point I'm guessing we wouldn't be having nearly as long of a debate on this because there would be no video to show how "cool" the pass was. Only aftermath pictures and public outrage after, from the looks of the HuD tape, a dozen or more people were killed when a plane careened into them while trying to tie the record for lowest low pass ever.

Please do us all a favor, never, ever get your pilot's license. If you do, stay away from warbirds. That type of flying, whether against rules or not, is reckless.

Well I am working on my license now, and am actually doing very well and am not far from my checkride. I would have finished a few years back except I ran out of money when I decided to go to college. I never claimed I had to skill or desire to fly a plane that way myself. I said people who do it on a regular basis get really good at it. I have no plans on practicing it because it is against the rules! You, sir, strike me as somebody that has no involvement with flying as anything other than a passenger or maybe just a spectator. That is fine, please do not presume to tell the rest of flying world what to do.

I do not know the reaction times that you are asking about. By all means, feel free to make out a spread sheet that breaks it down because it would be interesting to know. When you do, keep in mind that neither the IA 63 Pampa or L-29 weigh 8,000lbs.

Neither of the pilots in these videos hurt anything or anyone so it seems like they were pretty responsible. Unless of course you count the fact that the guy in the L-29 was possibly going around after forgetting to lower the gear! That would explain the flaps being down. I had not noticed that before. Thanks to Zane for pointing that out. If he did forget to put the gear down then that I would call not being responsible.

Low passes are not for you. Do not feel that you are required to participate in them.

muddyboots · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:32 pm

warbird2 wrote:

Well I am working on my license now, and am actually doing very well and am not far from my checkride.

Cows and birds and little children and old ladies everywhere are running for cover and screaming for help.

warbird2 · **Joined:** Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:03 am **Posts:** 173

muddyboots wrote:

warbird2 wrote:

Well I am working on my license now, and am actually doing very well and am not far from my checkride.

Cows and birds and little children and old ladies everywhere are running for cover and screaming for help.

All are safe but I cannot speak 100% for the birds. They tend to seek out airplanes at certain hours, regardless of where you are.

davidbray · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:50 pm

warbird2 wrote:

davidbray wrote:

Nope you are right I don't have the skill or ability to fly like that. If I did, I hope that I would be more RESPONSIBLE than the pilots in question. Another thing has become very clear to me though. I am also very glad that you sir, are not a pilot. You would have killed someone, or yourself at this point. Because as long as it isn't against any rules it is fair game in your book.

You know what the reaction time is for someone to start moving when a 400 mph, 8000 lb bullet is coming at you? Oh and lets not forget that since they were no more than 5 feet off the ground during the start of their pass, a nice little gust of wind, bump going across the taxiway, whatever and the plane is now skidding across the ground in a nice big fireball. Of course at that point I'm guessing we wouldn't be having nearly as long of a debate on this because there would be no video to show how "cool" the pass was. Only aftermath pictures and public outrage after, from the looks of the HuD tape, a dozen or more people were killed when a plane careened into them while trying to tie the record for lowest low pass ever.

Please do us all a favor, never, ever get your pilot's license. If you do, stay away from warbirds. That type of flying, whether against rules or not, is reckless.

Well I am working on my license now, and am actually doing very well and am not far from my checkride. I would have finished a few years back except I ran out of money when I decided to go to college. I never claimed I had to skill or desire to fly a plane that way myself. I said people who do it on a regular basis get really good at it. I have no plans on practicing it because it is against the rules! You, sir, strike me as somebody that has no involvement with flying as anything other than a passenger or maybe just a spectator. That is fine, please do not presume to tell the rest of flying world what to do.

I do not know the reaction times that you are asking about. By all means, feel free to make out a spread sheet that breaks it down because it would be interesting to know. When you do, keep in mind that neither the IA 63 Pampa or L-29 weigh 8,000lbs.

Neither of the pilots in these videos hurt anything or anyone so it seems like they were pretty responsible. Unless of course you count the fact that the guy in the L-29 was possibly going around after forgetting to lower the gear! That would explain the flaps being down. I had not noticed that before. Thanks to Zane for pointing that out. If he did forget to put the gear down then that I would call not being responsible.

Low passes are not for you. Do not feel that you are required to participate in them.

I am now wondering how you make it as a Loadmaster... Look up the IA 63. the loaded weight is 7700 lbs. The MTOW is just over 11000 lbs. The L-29 is a smaller aircraft yes, but it still weighs over 7800 lbs at MTOW.

As far as reaction times... a drag racer has an average reaction time of .080ish. So lets say since we aren't drag racers, our reaction time is at around a half a second. In that half a second at 400 mph the aircraft has traveled just under 300 feet. If we are around 500 feet from the taxiway (the most likely place for there to be a bobble) we have less than a second before the plane is on top of us. So now the question is if the plane were to bobble going over that taxiway, can you outrun the flames and the wreckage that are still traveling at over 350 mph at you? So I am going to stick with my reckless and dangerous statement.

As far as my involvement in aviation. I spent 3 years at school to get my bachelors in aviation maintenance. I had to leave for a semester at which point I spent a fall/winter as a lineman at an airport near here mostly fueling aircraft for UPS. In December while I was working there, I was run into by a small aircraft tug while hooking him up to a dolly (deicing fluid makes for slippery boots on smooth pedals.) I have spent that past 4+ years out of full time work, had a knee surgery, and tried with everything I've had to get back to my passion of aviation. While I am only a year away from my degree, I have no money to be able to go back and finish my degree. If it were up to me, I would have that degree and be working on getting experience so that I could someday be able to maintain warbirds like some of the guys on here. So if you please do not question my qualifications to say that this was a stupid maneuver. Quite honestly, since people like you exist (those who think that if it isn't against any rules it's no big deal,) people like me are even more important.

By the way, watch that HuD tape again. See the big MAX G pop up during their pull out? That as a maintainer throws some red flags to me personally. Sadly, the tape quality isn't good enough to show the exact value that they pulled.

And finally, a safely performed low pass is just fine, when you don't have any room for error there is a BIG issue. And yes, I will stay away from low passes like this. I like my life, no matter how bad it can be at any point in time, and I have no intention of putting it on the line for some stupid adrenaline rush from a pilot who has got a HUGE case of machoism.

And now thanks to this stupid thread, I have a massive headache. Its like I'm banging my head against a wall.

warbird2 · **Joined:** Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:03 am **Posts:** 173

davidbray wrote:

I am now wondering how you make it as a Loadmaster... Look up the IA 63. the loaded weight is 7700 lbs. The MTOW is just over 11000 lbs. The L-29 is a smaller aircraft yes, but it still weighs over 7800 lbs at MTOW.

I make it fairly well as a loadmaster. I was not a stellar performer at all times in school but I ended up pretty good. Since you did ask, I will explain this real slow so I can be sure you understand it. Take the 8,000lbs you mentioned and subtract the 7,700lbs loaded weight. That is the basic weight of the plane plus the fuel, crew, and any load to be carried and all configured for a typical mission. Then we subtract. It gets tricky here so pay close attention. 8,000 - 7,700 = 300. That is 300lbs. The max takeoff weight possible for the airplane does not matter here since the one in the video is not carrying full stores. So, it is less than 8,000lbs.
If you want me to work out the numbers for the L-29, let me know and I will see if I can manage to do it. Remember you are the one that brought up the arbitrary 8,000lb airplane hurtling dangerously towards everyone. I do appreciate your concern but I think I have a pretty good grasp of this part of the business.

davidbray wrote:

As far as reaction times... a drag racer has an average reaction time of .080ish. So lets say since we aren't drag racers, our reaction time is at around a half a second. In that half a second at 400 mph the aircraft has traveled just under 300 feet. If we are around 500 feet from the taxiway (the most likely place for there to be a bobble) we have less than a second before the plane is on top of us. So now the question is if the plane were to bobble going over that taxiway, can you outrun the flames and the wreckage that are still traveling at over 350 mph at you? So I am going to stick with my reckless and dangerous statement.

I will admit that I know very little about drag racers so you have me there! But you are pretty good at this math stuff. You are right, that is 293.33335 feet. I am curious to know how you decided that the taxiway is the most likely place for a bobble to happen?

davidbray wrote:

As far as my involvement in aviation. I spent 3 years at school to get my bachelors in aviation maintenance. I had to leave for a semester at which point I spent a fall/winter as a lineman at an airport near here mostly fueling aircraft for UPS. In December while I was working there, I was run into by a small aircraft tug while hooking him up to a dolly (deicing fluid makes for slippery boots on smooth pedals.) I have spent that past 4+ years out of full time work, had a knee surgery, and tried with everything I've had to get back to my passion of aviation. While I am only a year away from my degree, I have no money to be able to go back and finish my degree. If it were up to me, I would have that degree and be working on getting experience so that I could someday be able to maintain warbirds like some of the guys on here. So if you please do not question my qualifications to say that this was a stupid maneuver. Quite honestly, since people like you exist (those who think that if it isn't against any rules it's no big deal,) people like me are even more important.

You have had a bad run of luck and I am honestly sorry about that. I do mean that and I do hope that things improve. I am also hoping that you are fortunate enough to have family and good friends that have stood beside you through this.

So your aviation experience amounts to: almost done with maintenance school, worked as a line boy, unfortunately got ran over by a tug. I am lost as to how this qualifies you to make any judgement on a flyby. You took a whole paragraph to confirm what I originally said about you. You sound like "somebody that has no involvement with flying as anything other than a passenger or maybe just a spectator."

davidbray wrote:

By the way, watch that HuD tape again. See the big MAX G pop up during their pull out? That as a maintainer throws some red flags to me personally. Sadly, the tape quality isn't good enough to show the exact value that they pulled.

As I understand it, MAX G is telling you that you are at the limit. Just like a stall warning horn. Nothing wrong with reaching those points, just do not exceed them. Much like your sideline "I was not there and really do not know anything about it" comments about the flybys, you also do not know if they did anything wrong, based on the tape quality.

davidbray wrote:

And finally, a safely performed low pass is just fine, when you don't have any room for error there is a BIG issue. And yes, I will stay away from low passes like this. I like my life, no matter how bad it can be at any point in time, and I have no intention of putting it on the line for some stupid adrenaline rush from a pilot who has got a HUGE case of machoism.

Lets use your math from the drag racing/low pass "gonna kill us all" scenario. If a plane is doing 250mph, it will be doing 366.6667 feet per second. Since we have rules for rounding in the loadmaster business, I will just say 367 feet per second. Say the pass is at 300 feet since that sounds like a fun number. Answer: It will take less than a second to hit the ground. Is that more acceptable to you?

I'll give you the formula so you can figure out what you think is a safe altitude/airspeed. Please let me and the rest of the class know what you decide.

y(mph) = x(ftpm) x 60 / 5280 = 0.113636364x.

davidbray wrote:

And now thanks to this stupid thread, I have a massive headache. Its like I'm banging my head against a wall.

Calm down David. It is just an argument on the internet.

davidbray · **Posted:** Sat Jun 11, 2011 4:46 am

warbird2 wrote:

davidbray wrote:

I am now wondering how you make it as a Loadmaster... Look up the IA 63. the loaded weight is 7700 lbs. The MTOW is just over 11000 lbs. The L-29 is a smaller aircraft yes, but it still weighs over 7800 lbs at MTOW.

I make it fairly well as a loadmaster. I was not a stellar performer at all times in school but I ended up pretty good. Since you did ask, I will explain this real slow so I can be sure you understand it. Take the 8,000lbs you mentioned and subtract the 7,700lbs loaded weight. That is the basic weight of the plane plus the fuel, crew, and any load to be carried and all configured for a typical mission. Then we subtract. It gets tricky here so pay close attention. 8,000 - 7,700 = 300. That is 300lbs. The max takeoff weight possible for the airplane does not matter here since the one in the video is not carrying full stores. So, it is less than 8,000lbs.
If you want me to work out the numbers for the L-29, let me know and I will see if I can manage to do it. Remember you are the one that brought up the arbitrary 8,000lb airplane hurtling dangerously towards everyone. I do appreciate your concern but I think I have a pretty good grasp of this part of the business.

davidbray wrote:

As far as reaction times... a drag racer has an average reaction time of .080ish. So lets say since we aren't drag racers, our reaction time is at around a half a second. In that half a second at 400 mph the aircraft has traveled just under 300 feet. If we are around 500 feet from the taxiway (the most likely place for there to be a bobble) we have less than a second before the plane is on top of us. So now the question is if the plane were to bobble going over that taxiway, can you outrun the flames and the wreckage that are still traveling at over 350 mph at you? So I am going to stick with my reckless and dangerous statement.

I will admit that I know very little about drag racers so you have me there! But you are pretty good at this math stuff. You are right, that is 293.33335 feet. I am curious to know how you decided that the taxiway is the most likely place for a bobble to happen?

davidbray wrote:

As far as my involvement in aviation. I spent 3 years at school to get my bachelors in aviation maintenance. I had to leave for a semester at which point I spent a fall/winter as a lineman at an airport near here mostly fueling aircraft for UPS. In December while I was working there, I was run into by a small aircraft tug while hooking him up to a dolly (deicing fluid makes for slippery boots on smooth pedals.) I have spent that past 4+ years out of full time work, had a knee surgery, and tried with everything I've had to get back to my passion of aviation. While I am only a year away from my degree, I have no money to be able to go back and finish my degree. If it were up to me, I would have that degree and be working on getting experience so that I could someday be able to maintain warbirds like some of the guys on here. So if you please do not question my qualifications to say that this was a stupid maneuver. Quite honestly, since people like you exist (those who think that if it isn't against any rules it's no big deal,) people like me are even more important.

You have had a bad run of luck and I am honestly sorry about that. I do mean that and I do hope that things improve. I am also hoping that you are fortunate enough to have family and good friends that have stood beside you through this.

So your aviation experience amounts to: almost done with maintenance school, worked as a line boy, unfortunately got ran over by a tug. I am lost as to how this qualifies you to make any judgement on a flyby. You took a whole paragraph to confirm what I originally said about you. You sound like "somebody that has no involvement with flying as anything other than a passenger or maybe just a spectator."

davidbray wrote:

By the way, watch that HuD tape again. See the big MAX G pop up during their pull out? That as a maintainer throws some red flags to me personally. Sadly, the tape quality isn't good enough to show the exact value that they pulled.

As I understand it, MAX G is telling you that you are at the limit. Just like a stall warning horn. Nothing wrong with reaching those points, just do not exceed them. Much like your sideline "I was not there and really do not know anything about it" comments about the flybys, you also do not know if they did anything wrong, based on the tape quality.

davidbray wrote:

And finally, a safely performed low pass is just fine, when you don't have any room for error there is a BIG issue. And yes, I will stay away from low passes like this. I like my life, no matter how bad it can be at any point in time, and I have no intention of putting it on the line for some stupid adrenaline rush from a pilot who has got a HUGE case of machoism.

Lets use your math from the drag racing/low pass "gonna kill us all" scenario. If a plane is doing 250mph, it will be doing 366.6667 feet per second. Since we have rules for rounding in the loadmaster business, I will just say 367 feet per second. Say the pass is at 300 feet since that sounds like a fun number. Answer: It will take less than a second to hit the ground. Is that more acceptable to you?

I'll give you the formula so you can figure out what you think is a safe altitude/airspeed. Please let me and the rest of the class know what you decide.

y(mph) = x(ftpm) x 60 / 5280 = 0.113636364x.

davidbray wrote:

And now thanks to this stupid thread, I have a massive headache. Its like I'm banging my head against a wall.

Calm down David. It is just an argument on the internet.

Wow... thanks for calling me stupid jerk. I am off by 300 freaking pounds and you call me stupid? Not too bad for guessing. You have been a freaking cancer on this site since you joined. As far as insulting me every time I try to point out the fact that this was a reckless dumb maneuver that could have easily cost the lives of those on the ground who the pilot nearly hit, well it shows how much of a jerk you are. I love how you claim to feel bad for me and yet insult me in the same breath. If you had paid attention you would see that I do have a very good background in aviation, I have taken a full ground school, I have studied aircraft structures, I have studied in depth aircraft systems, I have studied aerodynamics and how they affect aircraft, I have studied weather patterns and how they can affect the air pockets that cause turbulence, I have studied every little thing I could possibly find since leaving school to give me more information for when I finally find a way back into aviation. For you to tell me that I have no involvement in aviation other than being a passenger or a spectator is insulting. What makes you so qualified to say that this was totally safe? What makes you such an expert? Flying in the back of a C-17? Your lessons in a 172? Before you start insulting someones knowledge you had better think about what you are typing.

One more thing kid, don't ever call me a line boy again. I was a line service professional. I fueled, turned charter aircraft and did every other think under the moon. I spend every day with a nice grind in my knee to remind me of how much I miss working at an airport.

There is no formula for figuring out the safe altitude for a flyby, as far as speed... below Vne and above Vs. It should just be common sense. It seems to be something that you are lacking.

WIXMOD-Charlie · **Joined:** Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:53 am **Posts:** 256

warbird2 wrote:

Calm down David. It is just an argument on the internet.

And yet most of the arguments on WIX seem to center around you. I have just about had it with you! I suggest you calm down stop arguing with other people or more drastic measures will be taken.

Nathan · **Posted:** Sat Jun 11, 2011 6:44 am

I'd like to know who warbird2 is. There are too many people around here that have the same tone and expressions. It can't just be coincidence.

We need to get along here. Too many threads being locked these day but IMHO NEED to stay LOCKED.

Just my pennies worth... :drink3:

whistlingdeath77 · **Posted:** Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:18 am

WIXMOD-Alpha · **Posted:** Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:01 am

warbird2 - the mods are watching you - CLOSELY. Take a note at whatever Brad tells you (http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=41342), 'cause he's probably going to be nicer than the mod team if things don't settle down.

For the rest of you - if you don't like what warbird2 says, you can always ignore him. Don't feed what you don't like.

Warbird Information Exchange

Low Pass!!!!!

Who is online