Blue Angel down

[KW4MW]

I always hate to hear this:

Blue Angel crash in S.C. kills 1 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070421/ap_on_re_us/blue_angel_crash)

[k5xit]

All the country hates to hear of something like this happening. We have lost one of our brightest and best. The aviation community especially hurts when a pilot is lost. My guess is that he stayed with the plane and tried to avoid people and homes. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[W2ILP]

k5xit

Fact is that it was luckly nobody on the ground was killed...BUT # there was unavoidable damage to some homes. #I dunno why but the aircraft dipped below ithe formation and clipped pine trees...there was no time for the pilot to be heroic...

The fact is that the best way to avoid potential damage to people and homes would be to prohibit close formation flying such as the Blure Angels do. #Stunt flying is not heroic the way I see it...It is not just dangerous to pilots ...but more importantly; #it is dangerous to innocent people on the ground and their property...and it is unnecessary for our national defense as well as a waste of money and resources.

w2ilp (I Like Planes)...when they are flying to serve a useful purpose.

[K8MHZ]

Oh man...

Having worked security for the Blue Angels several times this hit pretty close to home. (Our house is 1600 feet from the airport the Blues fly at when they come here.)

I sure hope the homes that were involved were in the 'sterile box'.

Godspeed to the pilot.

[kg4kww]

Thoughts and prayers to the pilots family and those affected.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[W5IEI]

Leave it to ILP to find blame!

Am I the only one sick of the childish use of his suffix cutesy phonetics?

[KC9ECI]

They were scheduled to be here at the Deke Slayton (remember him?) Airfest next month. I suppose they will be grounded now. I think the last time this happened, they were down for a year.

[K8MHZ]

Quote[/b] (W5IEI @ April 21 2007,14:31)]Leave it to ILP to find blame!

Am I the only one sick of the childish use of his suffix cutesy phonetics?
He does bring up a rather good point though.

I have seen the Blues do this. #It's cool to watch but is it really needed? #There are far more air show crashes involving military aircraft than you realize. #The media suppresses it. #I personally know two people that were at different air shows where military aircraft crashed and there were fatalities. #One right here in Michigan at Selfridge. #Another was down south where a large military transport plane crashed and plowed into the crowd. #I saw pictures of it from one of my relatives cameras. #Gruesome. #I could find no reference to either on the Internet.

I love airshows and have worked at one of the finest, but could not get the image of the Sword of Damocles hanging over my head out of my mind while I did.

[KI4SQT]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ April 20 2007,20:20)]k5xit

Fact is that it was luckly nobody on the ground was killed...BUT # there was unavoidable damage to some homes. #I dunno why but the aircraft dipped below ithe formation and clipped pine trees...there was no time for the pilot to be heroic...

The fact is that the best way to avoid potential damage to people and homes would be to prohibit close formation flying such as the Blure Angels do. #Stunt flying is not heroic the way I see it...It is not just dangerous to pilots ...but more importantly; #it is dangerous to innocent people on the ground and their property...and it is unnecessary for our national defense as well as a waste of money and resources.

w2ilp (I Like Planes)...when they are flying to serve a useful purpose.
Statistically, it's far more dangerous to innocent people...everytime you get in your car...Lets outlaw that too...LOL

[W2ILP]

w5iei

Sorry OM. I intend to blame no one. Society unfortunately bends to a culture of heroics that is a cause of emulating what is heroic in the movies.

I know who the real heroes are. They are the many pilots who fly safely many thousands of hours and serve in the real public interest, as well as for the airlines or our government. They are the unsung heroes. And I might add that the many mechanics and technicians who maintain the aircraft and keep them flying safely are also unsung heroes.

I certainly don't blame the unfortunate pilot who died accidentally...but I think that our government might be somewhat to blame because it sponsors such air shows at government expense for public relations purposes. I admit that I'm an old curmudgeon. Please forgive me for being pragmatic and not seeing the romance of daredevilry as being vitally productive.

w2ilp (I Like Pilots)...Keep 'em flying...but not in tight formation!

[KI4PEQ]

Why do the Navy and the Air Force have aerial demonstration teams? Several reasons. One is that it is a proven recruiting tool. Another is it gives the public a chance to see manuvers that every pilot or aviator must use in a combat situation. While combat may not be as pretty, attention to detail and precision flying are done every time a military fighter goes on a mission. The pilots and aviators in the Thunderbirds and the Blue Angels are hand selected and recommended for the special duty by their superior officers. To make either team you must be the best of the best, and maintain that high edge throughout your tenure. There have been instances in both teams where members have left the team when they knew they did not have "the right stuff" to fly at the level required for the demonstration team.

And in both the Navy and the Air Force teams, the aircraft are not show queens. While they get the ultimate in maintenance from a hand picked crew chief and maintenance staff, every aircraft is fully combat capable, and can be in the combat theatre rather quickly, all it takes is a return of the aircraft to standard military paint.

After any incident like this, there is always a call to ban demonstration flights. The benefits in showcasing the capabilities of the military flyer and the planes they fly, coupled with the boosts in morale of the viewing public and the recruiting benefits, far outweigh the liabilities that crop up when an aerial accident occurs.

I speak from experience as a retired Air Force public affairs NCO.

[WF7A]

True story:

My cousin, a high-time pilot who lived in South Florida, was on the upwind leg of his takeoff when the engine suddenly died. He didn't have enough altitude to return to the field and what lain ahead and around him were hundreds of homes, so there was no place to land. He had two choices, risk landing on a very narrow street where the odds were that he'd hurt or kill somebody on the ground, or spiral it in on a plot of raw land beneath him and take himself out in the process; he opted for the latter and that's how he died.

[n2ize]

The real question should be why do we need people playing around in the sky for showmanship and public PR ? A plane is a tool. When someone joins the military they may learn to fly one and they'll get all the training they need there. There is no need to put on high speed close formation shows for public entertainment. For the few aw's and ah's gained you are putting people in the air under unessesary risk as well as people on the ground.

To me this is a sensleless waste of life and property that could have been avoided by simply growing up and acting responsibly.

[ac3p]

Brings back memories of air shows in my town.

Back in 1990 we had the first air show in may a year at Martin State Airport formerly the Glenn L Martin Co. Airport used to test aircraft.

At that air show a pilot was killed doing a stunt of one of those corkscrew stalls. The plane pancaked. There was no exposlion or fire but the pilot died on impact.

Fast forward a few years and during another airshow an F-117 Stealth fighter was doing a flyby when it suddenly came apart. The pilot ejected and the plane did a cescent like a feather floating down. It struck a house and burst into flame. Luckily no one on the ground was hurt.

The Air Force quickly shut down the area around the crash site an no one was permitted in until the debris was cleaned up and taken away.

After that it was decided not to have any more air shows in my community.

It is sad news to hear of this accident. R.I.P for the pilot and condolences to the family.

[k5xit]

I see that there have been a few comments with differing views on this accident. I was not there and did not see it so I cannot offer anything but spectulation. System failure or fire at low level is the very worst thing that can happen to you. You may not have time or be able to exit the aircraft There are reasons you were trained to fly in formation and it was not to entertain the public. The air shows are to show off equipment, public relations and recruiting not to mention entertainment. We have always had accidents and will continue to have them and will morn the loss of good pilots. The non aviation community cannot understand and they should not judge what they fail to understand. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[N2NKW]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ April 21 2007,23:21)]The real question should be why do we need people playing around in the sky for showmanship and public PR ? A plane is a tool. When someone joins the military they may learn to fly one and they'll get all the training they need there. There is no need to put on high speed close formation shows for public entertainment. For the few aw's and ah's gained you are putting people in the air under unessesary risk as well as people on the ground.

To me this is a sensleless waste of life and property that could have been avoided by simply growing up and acting responsibly.
Just because there is a risk of an accident, there is no need to not be able to show off. I get the feeling you would ban the activity given half a chance. Thats just kneejerk reaction to a situation and thats just wrong.

Risk is a part of every day life. Accidents happen. They may not be planned for but they do happen. Condemning an activity because of an accident is not the right thing to do. Restructuring of the safety situations for a risky activity is the best thing to do. But even with proper planning, accidents will and do happen.

We take risks every day but they happen so often that we become desensitized to them and don't get mad and try to ban them. The risk factor of having a plane crash on your house during an air show is much lower then your being involved in a car crash, yet I see nobody yelling about banning cars on the local roads.

Without risk, you would not have much of the things you have today.

This situation is not the result of not "Simply Growing Up And Acting Responsibly" That pilot was a man who took his job as a military aviation pilot very seriously. They don't let immature kids who act irresponsibly fly these planes. The Blue Angels will pretty much guarentee that there is no childishness or acts of irresponsibility happening in thier ranks.


Thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it!

'nuf said

'NKW

[WA2DYA]

I've seen them fly many times. They are not 'hotdogs'. When they perform, you need to walk a mile from where you parked your car. The public loves the show. The public loves these fliers. They represent us all and do us all credit.

--- CHAS

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (N2NKW @ April 22 2007,07:37)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ April 21 2007,23:21)]The real question should be why do we need people playing around in the sky for showmanship and public PR ? A plane is a tool. When someone joins the military they may learn to fly one and they'll get all the training they need there. There is no need to put on high speed close formation shows for public entertainment. For the few aw's and ah's gained you are putting people in the air under unessesary risk as well as people on the ground.

To me this is a sensleless waste of life and property that could have been avoided by simply growing up and acting responsibly.
Just because there is a risk of an accident, there is no need to not be able to show off. #I get the feeling you would ban the activity given half a chance. Thats just kneejerk reaction to a situation and thats just wrong. #

Risk is a part of every day life. #Accidents happen. #They may not be planned for but they do happen. #Condemning an activity because of an accident is not the right thing to do. #Restructuring of the safety situations for a risky activity is the best thing to do. #But even with proper planning, accidents will and do happen. #

We take risks every day but they happen so often that we become desensitized to them and don't get mad and try to ban them. #The risk factor of having a plane crash on your house during an air show is much lower then your being involved in a car crash, yet I see nobody yelling about banning cars on the local roads.

Without risk, you would not have much of the things you have today. #

This situation is not the result of not "Simply Growing Up And Acting Responsibly" #That pilot was a man who took his job as a military aviation pilot very seriously. #They don't let immature kids who act irresponsibly fly these planes. #The Blue Angels will pretty much guarentee that there is no childishness or acts of irresponsibility happening in thier ranks. #


Thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it!

'nuf said

'NKW
Quote[/b] ]
This situation is not the result of not "Simply Growing Up And Acting Responsibly" #That pilot was a man who took his job as a military aviation pilot very seriously. #They don't let immature kids who act irresponsibly fly these planes. #The Blue Angels will pretty much guarentee that there is no childishness or acts of irresponsibility happening in thier ranks.
#

And what is the difference between this and a bunch of kids who crash their car and kill someone for a thrill ? Neither of them expected or intended anything bad to happen.yet in both cases it's an unessesary risk that led to loss of life and destruction. Both are done for a unessesary needless thrill.

It doesn't matter how seriously the person takes it. the fact is that it is completely unessesary and not only is the life of some flyboy being risked (and in this case lost) but so are the lives of people on the ground.
Many people take their jobs very seriously but do they take unessesary risks for thrills that not only put themselves in harms way but innocent bystanders as well ? The answer to that question is usually no.

Sometimes in life it is indeed nessesary to take certain risks. But the issue here is that an expensive high speed aircraft (that MY TAX MONEY has paid for) is being used as a toy for public amusement and, to make matters worst it is being used in close proximity to a populated area where an accident could easilly kill a sizeable number of people on the ground in addition to extensive property damage (which my tax money will also pay for). And all for public amusement and public relations ?? In my opinion that is totally unessesary, immature, and a total irresponsible waste of life and resources.

Yeah, I feel sorry for the guy who died. I am sure he did his best to minimize damages. At the same time I see nothing sensible to neccesitate such a waste of life and property.

[N2NKW]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ April 22 2007,15:41)]Quote[/b] ]
This situation is not the result of not "Simply Growing Up And Acting Responsibly" That pilot was a man who took his job as a military aviation pilot very seriously. They don't let immature kids who act irresponsibly fly these planes. The Blue Angels will pretty much guarentee that there is no childishness or acts of irresponsibility happening in thier ranks.


And what is the difference between this and a bunch of kids who crash their car and kill someone for a thrill ? Neither of them expected or intended anything bad to happen.yet in both cases it's an unessesary risk that led to loss of life and destruction. Both are done for a unessesary needless thrill.

It doesn't matter how seriously the person takes it. the fact is that it is completely unessesary and not only is the life of some flyboy being risked (and in this case lost) but so are the lives of people on the ground.
Many people take their jobs very seriously but do they take unessesary risks for thrills that not only put themselves in harms way but innocent bystanders as well ? The answer to that question is usually no.

Sometimes in life it is indeed nessesary to take certain risks. But the issue here is that an expensive high speed aircraft (that MY TAX MONEY has paid for) is being used as a toy for public amusement and, to make matters worst it is being used in close proximity to a populated area where an accident could easilly kill a sizeable number of people on the ground in addition to extensive property damage (which my tax money will also pay for). And all for public amusement and public relations ?? In my opinion that is totally unessesary, immature, and a total irresponsible waste of life and resources.

Yeah, I feel sorry for the guy who died. I am sure he did his best to minimize damages. At the same time I see nothing sensible to neccesitate such a waste of life and property.
The difference is that kids who go out and crash their cars for a needless thrill is that they are not trained and therefore are a danger to everyone around them. The difference between a kid thrill driver and a Blue Angel is TRAINING. Blue Angels have thousands of hours of specific training by top notch instructors and thousands more hours of actual performance experience. That's the major difference between the 2.

Put a young car driver with a years experience driving to work into a situation where they are able to impress friends with thier hotrodded (or maybe not so hotrodded) vehicles, toss in some hormones, maybe a bit of alcohol, a whole lot of bravado and even more irresponsibility of youth and a willingness to impress, then you have a recipe for disaster. Not to mention if the driver doesn't have rich parents, and is driving a 20 year old souped up POS.

Take a properly trained and highly experienced aviation professional with a high powered extremely fast plane, toss in a few dozen highly trained and experienced ground crew and support personnel, a sense of purpose and responsibility in life, a willingness to be the best pilot in the world, and you have a recipe for success.

As I said before, there will always be a chance for an accident, but the chance is far far lower for the above noted professional to have one.

You may believe that it is unnecessary to have an air show for "thrills", but as was noted in other parts of this thread, airshows do have a purpose. Recruitment into the armed forces. If this is what it takes to get people interested in military service, then so be it. You believe that the cost of doing this sort of thing is for a laugh? Irresponsible spending of tax money? I think it's good to be spending the tax money on this to help recruitment into the armed services. People will not have any interest if they can't see what the possibilities of military training can hold for them.
Regardless of how our government has put our soldiers into harms way, we will ALWAYS need a good source of military aged people who are willing to serve. Nobody will serve in a volunteer military without being interested in serving.

Then there is the aviation fan. People who know about and love the aviation industry. These folks go to these events to see and keep up with the latest technology in civilian and military aviation. They do it for the passion. They know what the risks are, just as anyone who knows about aviation and what the chances of a crash are. They know they are minimal and make the decision to go.

Then, there is the average person who knows that things like this can be a bit risky, what with all the negative publicity tossed at us by the "News" . We decide to go anyway. Why would you want to tell someone not to go to an event that has a low chance of an aviation accident?

I can understand your not wanting to see people die at these sort of shows but if the people want to go, then let them. I do understand and agree with the airshows being held nearby to major population centers. I do not agree with the airshow promoters. These shows need to be held further away from populated areas. The major problem is, very few municipalities will say "No" to folks who are willing to pay top dollar for the land near to airports. But thats a whole other topic entirely.That is something I would have to say, needs to be addressed.

And with that, I will say you are entitled to your opinion. I will just have to disagree with your assessment of the situation.

73

Brian 'NKW

[w5klb]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ April 21 2007,18:20)]k5xit

Fact is that it was luckly nobody on the ground was killed...BUT # there was unavoidable damage to some homes. #I dunno why but the aircraft dipped below ithe formation and clipped pine trees...there was no time for the pilot to be heroic...

The fact is that the best way to avoid potential damage to people and homes would be to prohibit close formation flying such as the Blure Angels do. #Stunt flying is not heroic the way I see it...It is not just dangerous to pilots ...but more importantly; #it is dangerous to innocent people on the ground and their property...and it is unnecessary for our national defense as well as a waste of money and resources.

w2ilp (I Like Planes)...when they are flying to serve a useful purpose.
This posting comes from someone who hasn't been around the "Blues." Every formation the Blue Angels fly is actual combat air formation including flying the tight diamond fomation. I know this because I helped support the Blue Angels back in '85 when they where flying A-4 Skyhawk IIs.

Rest assured that the Navy Blue Angels will have an aircraft mishap investigation to learn the causes and implement measures to ensure this doesn't happen again. I don't think eliminating close flying formations will be an option.

This also stirs up some old memories of fatal aircraft mishap that happen back in 87-88 in a residential area near the old Glenview, IL Naval Air Station. A T-39G Sabre Liner, the Admiral's bird, didn't quite make it to the air station. It killed the pilot, co-pilot, and the FE who had a wife and small children. The Admiral wasn't on board and the only civilian injuries was a twisted ankle that a younster got running away from the crash. It threw a aircraft strut through a bay window (no one home) and lightly scourched some houses. That was it as far as cilivian damage goes. The the crew of this aircraft were all considered heros for saving the neigborhood and they erected a small monument dedicated to them on the street in Glenview at the very site of were this plain crashed. It also made CNN news.

My thoughts and prayers are with the family, friends and loved ones of this Angel.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (W5IEI @ April 21 2007,21:31)]Am I the only one sick of the childish use of his suffix cutesy phonetics?
No, but it fits like a glove.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ April 22 2007,18:59)]This posting comes from someone who hasn't been around the "Blues."
Among many, many other things.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (N2NKW @ April 22 2007,15:43)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ April 22 2007,15:41)]Quote[/b] ]
This situation is not the result of not "Simply Growing Up And Acting Responsibly" #That pilot was a man who took his job as a military aviation pilot very seriously. #They don't let immature kids who act irresponsibly fly these planes. #The Blue Angels will pretty much guarentee that there is no childishness or acts of irresponsibility happening in thier ranks.


And what is the difference between this and a bunch of kids who crash their car and kill someone for a thrill ? Neither of them expected or intended anything bad to happen.yet in both cases it's an unessesary risk that led to loss of life and destruction. Both are done for a unessesary needless thrill.

It doesn't matter how seriously the person takes it. the fact is that it is completely unessesary and not only is the life of some flyboy being risked (and in this case lost) but so are the lives of people on the ground.
Many people take their jobs very seriously but do they take unessesary risks for thrills that not only put themselves in harms way but innocent bystanders as well ? The answer to that question is usually no.

Sometimes in life it is indeed nessesary to take certain risks. But the issue here is that an expensive high speed aircraft (that MY TAX MONEY has paid for) is being used as a toy for public amusement and, to make matters worst it is being used in close proximity to a populated area where an accident could easilly kill a sizeable number of people on the ground in addition to extensive property damage (which my tax money will also pay for). And all for public amusement and public relations ?? In my opinion that is totally unessesary, immature, and a total irresponsible waste of life and resources.

Yeah, I feel sorry for the guy who died. I am sure he did his best to minimize damages. At the same time I see nothing sensible to neccesitate such a waste of life and property.
The difference is that kids who go out and crash their cars for a needless thrill is that they are not trained and therefore are a danger to everyone around them. #The difference between a kid thrill driver and a Blue Angel is TRAINING. #Blue Angels have thousands of hours of specific training by top notch instructors and thousands more hours of actual performance experience. #That's the major difference between the 2. #

Put a young car driver with a years experience driving to work into a situation where they are able to impress friends with thier hotrodded (or maybe not so hotrodded) vehicles, toss in some hormones, maybe a bit of alcohol, a whole lot of bravado and even more irresponsibility of youth and a willingness to impress, then you have a recipe for disaster. #Not to mention if the driver doesn't have rich parents, and is driving a 20 year old souped up POS.

Take a properly trained and highly experienced aviation professional with a high powered extremely fast plane, toss in a few dozen highly trained and experienced ground crew and support personnel, a sense of purpose and responsibility in life, a willingness to be the best pilot in the world, and you have a recipe for success. #

As I said before, there will always be a chance for an accident, but the chance is far far lower for the above noted professional to have one. #

You may believe that it is unnecessary to have an air show for "thrills", but as was noted in other parts of this thread, airshows do have a purpose. #Recruitment into the armed forces. #If this is what it takes to get people interested in military service, then so be it. #You believe that the cost of doing this sort of thing is for a laugh? Irresponsible spending of tax money? #I think it's good to be spending the tax money on this to help recruitment into the armed services. #People will not have any interest if they can't see what the possibilities of military training can hold for them.
Regardless of how our government has put our soldiers into harms way, we will ALWAYS need a good source of military aged people who are willing to serve. #Nobody will serve in a volunteer military without being interested in serving.

Then there is the aviation fan. #People who know about and love the aviation industry. #These folks go to these events to see and keep up with the latest technology in civilian and military aviation. #They do it for the passion. #They know what the risks are, just as anyone who knows about aviation and what the chances of a crash are. #They know they are minimal and make the decision to go. #

Then, there is the average person who knows that things like this can be a bit risky, what with all the negative publicity tossed at us by the "News" . #We decide to go anyway. #Why would you want to tell someone not to go to an event that has a low chance of an aviation accident? #

I can understand your not wanting to see people die at these sort of shows but if the people want to go, then let them. #I do understand and agree with the airshows being held nearby to major population centers. #I do not agree with the airshow promoters. #These shows need to be held further away from populated areas. #The major problem is, very few municipalities will say "No" to folks who are willing to pay top dollar for the land near to airports. But thats a whole other topic entirely.That is something I would have to say, needs to be addressed.

And with that, I will say you are entitled to your opinion. #I will just have to disagree with your assessment of the situation.

73

Brian 'NKW
Quote[/b] ]
The difference is that kids who go out and crash their cars for a needless thrill is that they are not trained and therefore are a danger to everyone around them. #The difference between a kid thrill driver and a Blue Angel is TRAINING. #Blue Angels have thousands of hours of specific training by top notch instructors and thousands more hours of actual performance experience. #That's the major difference between the 2. #


So, a kid with a car has training too. he passed his test and got his drivers license. One may have more training and experttisre but the bottom line is that in both cases it is being done for a needless thrill and unessesary risks are being taken. #The end result ?? A pilot is dead, several homes were destroyed and at least 8 people on the ground were injured. And for no good reason other than a thrill to WOW the public.

Quote[/b] ]
You may believe that it is unnecessary to have an air show for "thrills", but as was noted in other parts of this thread, airshows do have a purpose.


It is not only unessesary it is downright irresponsible and immature in my opinion. To endanger a community and risk a plane crashing into peoples homes and killing people for nothing more than a WOW moment is in my opinion the epitome of total irresponsibility and disregard.


Quote[/b] ]
Recruitment into the armed forces. #If this is what it takes to get people interested in military service, then so be it. #You believe that the cost of doing this sort of thing is for a laugh? Irresponsible spending of tax money? #I think it's good to be spending the tax money on this to help recruitment into the armed services. #


So in the name of recruitment you risk peoples lives and take irresponsible risks to wow people into joining ?? I don't buy it.
I don;t buy the idea of using an expensive aircraft paid for by my tax dollars as a toy for amusement along with the unessesary risks involved. There are plenty of other ways to induce military recruitment. The vast majority of persons who will eventually join the military are not joining because they were wow'ed into it by an air show.

Quote[/b] ]
I can understand your not wanting to see people die at these sort of shows but if the people want to go, then let them. #I do understand and agree with the airshows being held nearby to major population centers. #I do not agree with the airshow promoters. #These shows need to be held further away from populated areas. #The major problem is, very few municipalities will say "No" to folks who are willing to pay top dollar for the land near to airports. But thats a whole other topic


Fine. If the people attending and the people flying don't care about the risks then hold the show out in the desert somewhere far away from populated areas. At least that way a crash won't run the risk of taking out a community. It might be a sensible first step.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ April 22 2007,19:25)]Fine. If the people attending and the people flying don't care about the risks then hold the show out in the desert somewhere far away from populated areas. At least that way a crash won't run the risk of taking out a community. #It might be a sensible first step.
A better and more sensible first step, perhaps, would be were YOU to move into the desert where you would be safe from these shows, which are a very popular exhibition that provides worthwhile training for the pilots and good PR for the services.

[K9STH]

How many drivers have been injured or killed at the Indianapolis 500 or in the NASCAR events? Considerably more than the Blue Angels, Thunderbirds, Red Arrows (Canadian), etc. Also, how many spectators have been killed at the auto racing events as compared with air shows? I believe that number shows a preponderence of those killed have been at auto racing events.

It is always newsworthy when something happens at an air show because the happening is a VERY rare occurance. The carnage on the public highways is so common that it usually doesn't make the 10:00 PM news (in the central time zone, 11:00 PM in the eastern and pacific time zones).

Glen, K9STH

[N2NKW]

Quote[/b] ]
So, a kid with a car has training too. he passed his test and got his drivers license. One may have more training and experttisre but the bottom line is that in both cases it is being done for a needless thrill and unessesary risks are being taken.

Yeah like they have all the knowledge they need after driving for ...say 30 hours with mom and pop in the family wagon? Kids do it for the thrill without the proper training or experience to know exactly what thier car can do....

Next...


Quote[/b] ]It is not only unessesary it is downright irresponsible and immature in my opinion. To endanger a community and risk a plane crashing into peoples homes and killing people for nothing more than a WOW moment is in my opinion the epitome of total irresponsibility and disregard.

I agree with you about the placement of the airshow being too close to homes and neighborhoods. However, as Glen stated, These events are extremely rare. You are talking as if this event happens every day on every city and is a major safety situation. The FACT that this sort of thing is so RARE speaks to the skill of the pilots and the safety of the neighborhoods around the airport. There is so little risk that people are willing to live near to them. Is everyone stupid to live near to an airport? I doubt it.

Next...

Quote[/b] ]So in the name of recruitment you risk peoples lives and take irresponsible risks to wow people into joining ?? I don't buy it.

Once again, these unnecessary risks that you speak of are very small. I believe I would be killed more easily taking the interstate to the recruiters office more quickly then I would be killed at an airshow. The recruitment is effective and I would say more safe at an air event then heading to the local recruitment center.

Quote[/b] ]
I don;t buy the idea of using an expensive aircraft paid for by my tax dollars as a toy for amusement along with the unessesary risks involved. There are plenty of other ways to induce military recruitment. The vast majority of persons who will eventually join the military are not joining because they were wow'ed into it by an air show.


As to "amusement" I go to the county fair, the local mall, or any other place to look for idiocy to be amused. I go to major events with skilled professionals to be "entertained"

Yes there are a lot of other ways to actively recruit..This is one of them. Like it or not, it is effective. I know several former military pilots who wouldn't be military pilots without having been exposed to an airshow. It may not be the best form of recruitment for a sailor or a groundpounder, but it sure is effective to recruit someone who has an interest in the aviation aspect of the military. Interest in the profession will most times ensure quality recruits for military aviation. SEEING what you are interested in is always more effective then reading about or being talked to in an office about.

Next...


Quote[/b] ]Fine. If the people attending and the people flying don't care about the risks then hold the show out in the desert somewhere far away from populated areas. At least that way a crash won't run the risk of taking out a community. It might be a sensible first step.

I agree with you on that for the most part, except the majority of the Eastern and Central US don't have deserts. I am sure that there are places away from the majority of the population centers that can hold thse shows. The only problem with that is, if it's too far away, nobody comes to see them and they fail due to financial problems. It's a problem that should be addressed.

'NKW

[WF7A]

Air shows are like any other sporting event: people go to watch and get a thrill from the experience.

Remember a few years ago at an indoor truck rally race the driver lost control after going over a mound and the vehicle launched itself into the crowd? It caused one death (the spectator, of course). Accidents happen no matter how well-trained a driver or pilot is.

As said a few times in this thread, risk is all around us--we assess it and take your chances, be it going for a walk (and potentially getting mugged), fooling around with a lawnmower blade (without disconnecting the spark plug, first), or going to the fair (an errant bolt could come loose and send your roller coaster flying). It's a bitter pill to swallow, but life has no guarantees...other than it'll end someday. :S

Now, if you want to see some real racing, attend the Reno air races sometime. Hoo-ah!

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (N2NKW @ April 22 2007,18:20)]
Quote[/b] ]
Yeah like they have all the knowledge they need after driving for ...say 30 hours with mom and pop in the family wagon? #Kids do it for the thrill without the proper training or experience to know exactly what thier car can do....


It doesn't matter. It is still reckless endangerment. I don;t care how expert the person is, sooner or later accidents will happen. It has happened before and it will more than likely happen again. And even worst than a car a crash involving a high speed jet is even less forgiving and has the potential to do far greater damage. We already saw what happened in this one case scenario. A pilot died and 8 people on the ground were injured and homes were damaged or destoyed. The plane litterally plowed into an occupied community. Fortunately nobody in the community was killed. What if next time around a plane smashes into row of homes or an apartment and takes out dozens of people ? Are we just going to dismiss that as "par for the course" and "all in a days recruitment" too ??

At the very least these types of air shows should be held a considerable distance from any town, city or occupied area. Far enough away where the liklihood of hitting homes and occupied establishments is next to impossible. it may be an inconvenience, it may be a longer drive and harder to get to but, an occupied community should not serve as a backdrop for an air show.

Quote[/b] ]
Once again, these unnecessary risks that you speak of are very small. #I believe I would be killed more easily taking the interstate to the recruiters office more quickly then I would be killed at an airshow. #The recruitment is effective and I would say more safe at an air event then heading to the local recruitment center.


Yeah, but if a car were to have an accident it is unlikely that the car would go plowing into a bunch of homes setting them all on fire and killing the occupants. The issue is that while an air crash might be less likely when it does happen it is less forgiving both for the person in the air and for those on the ground nearby. Thats why I say, at the very least hold the air shows in locations far enough away from inhabited areas.

[N2NKW]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ April 22 2007,20:58)]
Quote[/b] ]
Yeah like they have all the knowledge they need after driving for ...say 30 hours with mom and pop in the family wagon? Kids do it for the thrill without the proper training or experience to know exactly what thier car can do....


It doesn't matter. It is still reckless endangerment. I don;t care how expert the person is, sooner or later accidents will happen. It has happened before and it will more than likely happen again. And even worst than a car a crash involving a high speed jet is even less forgiving and has the potential to do far greater damage. We already saw what happened in this one case scenario. A pilot died and 8 people on the ground were injured and homes were damaged or destoyed. The plane litterally plowed into an occupied community. Fortunately nobody in the community was killed. What if next time around a plane smashes into row of homes or an apartment and takes out dozens of people ? Are we just going to dismiss that as "par for the course" and "all in a days recruitment" too ??

At the very least these types of air shows should be held a considerable distance from any town, city or occupied area. Far enough away where the liklihood of hitting homes and occupied establishments is next to impossible. it may be an inconvenience, it may be a longer drive and harder to get to but, an occupied community should not serve as a backdrop for an air show.

Quote[/b] ]
Once again, these unnecessary risks that you speak of are very small. I believe I would be killed more easily taking the interstate to the recruiters office more quickly then I would be killed at an airshow. The recruitment is effective and I would say more safe at an air event then heading to the local recruitment center.


Yeah, but if a car were to have an accident it is unlikely that the car would go plowing into a bunch of homes setting them all on fire and killing the occupants. The issue is that while an air crash might be less likely when it does happen it is less forgiving both for the person in the air and for those on the ground nearby. Thats why I say, at the very least hold the air shows in locations far enough away from inhabited areas.
I see a pattern emerging. You want a No Risk environment to live in. No matter what, You want no risk at all. Absolutely none! Zip Zero Nada. Not even the slightest chance. You consider the slightest risk of an accident to be the product of reckless endangerment. You take no solace in the fact that an airshow pilot is a consummate professional.

What is it that you do for entertainment or amusement? Do you go to the movies? Go Shopping? These all involve risks.

You may have 40 years (or however long you have been driving) of driving experience. On the way to the movies or whatever you do to amuse yourself, you blow a tire, hit a bus and flip it killing 50 people. Well it's not a plane crash and it didn't involve a occupied community but what they hey?

Should we not allow mass transit because of the REMOTE risk that YOU may cause an accident with a bus?

Are You going to stay off the streets to protect the innocent defenseless masses? Not go to work? not risk eating a burger or fries because you have the chance to choke?

You keep stating that this air accident happened and imply that it was reckless endangerment. A plane came down in a occupied community. What if it happens again... Guess what...It WILL happen again and it may not even happen at an air show.

Are all pilots being guilty of reckless endangerment? Even if they are not in an airshow? Does mechanical failure have anything to do with reckless endangerment? I haven't been watching the news today. Has the official cause of the accident been released yet? No? How do you know it was reckless endangerment?

You cannot have ANY sort of population living together without the chance of risk. Are the people who live near airports have any less of a chance to have a plane crash in their community while NOT in an airshow?

WF7A has it right
Quote[/b] ]As said a few times in this thread, risk is all around us--we assess it and take your chances, be it going for a walk (and potentially getting mugged), fooling around with a lawnmower blade (without disconnecting the spark plug, first), or going to the fair (an errant bolt could come loose and send your roller coaster flying). It's a bitter pill to swallow, but life has no guarantees...other than it'll end someday. :S

Regardless of how safe you want to make the world around you, there will always be risk. There is nothing you can do about it. So go enjoy the airshow or go to the movies or stare at the sun...whatever you do for amusement...but be careful of driving to it and stay away from the busses.

Time to go to bed. Work beckons in the morning. Glad I am not parked near an airport... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (WF7A @ April 21 2007,21:37)]True story:

My cousin, a high-time pilot who lived in South Florida, was on the upwind leg of his takeoff when the engine suddenly died. He didn't have enough altitude to return to the field and what lain ahead and around him were hundreds of homes, so there was no place to land. He had two choices, risk landing on a very narrow street where the odds were that he'd hurt or kill somebody on the ground, or spiral it in on a plot of raw land beneath him and take himself out in the process; he opted for the latter and that's how he died.
The airport wouldn't be North Perry Airport in Hollywood, FL, would it?

The entire airport is surrounded on three sides by housing, and on the remaining side by a state mental hospital. There were a few patches of raw land there when I took flight training in the seventies. That crash description sounds very familiar.

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ April 21 2007,22:21)]The real question should be why do we need people playing around in the sky for showmanship and public PR ? A plane is a tool. When someone joins the military they may learn to fly one and they'll get all the training they need there. There is no need to put on high speed close formation shows for public entertainment. For the few aw's and ah's gained you are putting people in the air under unessesary risk as well as people on the ground.

To me this is a sensleless waste of life and property that could have been avoided by simply growing up and acting responsibly.
Sometimes the dumbass posts on this forum absolutely amaze me.

To me this is a sensleless waste of life and property that could have been avoided by simply growing up and acting responsibly.

The pilots and crews of military aviation are some of the most mature, most disciplined, and most responsible people you will find. The crew chief is responsible for a multi-million dollar aircraft. The pilot is responsible for using that aircraft. They are well aware of the serious mission that these planes are designed for. Aerial demonstrations are one way that the public can see the high level of training their taxes pay for, and the capabilities of the aircraft their taxes have paid for. These teams travel not only in the United States, but also abroad to show our allies and any potential adversary just what our aviators and pilots can do.

The military men and women that you dismiss as infantile and irresponsible, and the activities you label as a senseless waste are part of the reason you can sleep in a comfortable bed at night, free of fear of a foreign invader. As for the loss of life, that pilot knows that there is a chance that he may decend violently and vertically every time he straps himself in. It comes with the territory of flying a high performance military aircraft.

As for your crack about such demonstrations being held far away from populated areas, PEOPLE should not move to a home in the immedate vicinity of an airport if they fear an airplane falling down from the sky upon them. Those residents were not there as long as the air base was, and it is people that complain about the jet noise and danger that I have no sympathy for. If you didn't want to hear the jets and experience the possibility of a plane crashing into your house, then WHY did you move so close to the airfield?

If there is anyone with a problem of immaturity and irresponsibility, it is YOU for posting such crap. You made your silly little anti-military point, now go back under the rock you crawled out from under.

[n6hcm]

Quote[/b] (WA2DYA @ April 22 2007,12:46)]I've seen them fly many times. They are not 'hotdogs'. When they perform, you need to walk a mile from where you parked your car. The public loves the show.
not here they don't. when they're in town they practice over san francisco for a few days before the weekend air shows ... we get about five days of blue angel "fun" (noise, low-flying aircraft, ...)

i have no doubt that these folks are good at what they do, but they shouldn't be doing it over populated areas ... spending all that jet fuel for a public relations exercise seems like a waste, especially when we have folks on the other side of the world who have had to scramble for supplies that they need to get the job done.

[ka5piu]

Hello.

The reason the blue angels do what they do is that this is a good and cheap PR tool.
That is correct, for the budget of the blue angels program you can do a nationwide media blitz for less than a month.
But, guess what, most media blitz feature the blue angels.
And, unlike private enterprise, the military needs to recruit, especially now.
So, we can all sit on our butts and decide the faith of the world.
I see a fallen United States Navy Aviator who died doing his job.
So that we can all sit on our butts and decide the faith of the world.


To all American service men and women.

Thank you.

[KW4MW]

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ April 22 2007,19:59)]Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ April 21 2007,18:20)]k5xit

Fact is that it was luckly nobody on the ground was killed...BUT # there was unavoidable damage to some homes. #I dunno why but the aircraft dipped below ithe formation and clipped pine trees...there was no time for the pilot to be heroic...

The fact is that the best way to avoid potential damage to people and homes would be to prohibit close formation flying such as the Blure Angels do. #Stunt flying is not heroic the way I see it...It is not just dangerous to pilots ...but more importantly; #it is dangerous to innocent people on the ground and their property...and it is unnecessary for our national defense as well as a waste of money and resources.

w2ilp (I Like Planes)...when they are flying to serve a useful purpose.
This posting comes from someone who hasn't been around the "Blues." Every formation the Blue Angels fly is actual combat air formation including flying the tight diamond fomation. I know this because I helped support the Blue Angels back in '85 when they where flying A-4 Skyhawk IIs.

Rest assured that the Navy Blue Angels will have an aircraft mishap investigation to learn the causes and implement measures to ensure this doesn't happen again. I don't think eliminating close flying formations will be an option.

This also stirs up some old memories of fatal aircraft mishap that happen back in 87-88 in a residential area near the old Glenview, IL Naval Air Station. A T-39G Sabre Liner, the Admiral's bird, didn't quite make it to the air station. It killed the pilot, co-pilot, and the FE who had a wife and small children. The Admiral wasn't on board and the only civilian injuries was a twisted ankle that a younster got running away from the crash. It threw a aircraft strut through a bay window (no one home) and lightly scourched some houses. That was it as far as cilivian damage goes. The the crew of this aircraft were all considered heros for saving the neigborhood and they erected a small monument dedicated to them on the street in Glenview at the very site of were this plain crashed. It also made CNN news.

My thoughts and prayers are with the family, friends and loved ones of this Angel.
About the same thing happened here at NAS JAX a few months ago. #An S-3 was doing touch and go's and had turned on it's final approach to the runway when it was struck by lightning - probably wiping out all the fly by wire controls. #The pilot and copilot were able to put the aircraft down in a wooded area between a housing development and a busy highway (US17). #Neither was able to eject in time. #They could have done so to save their lifes at the expense of killing some innocent people on the ground and they choose to ride the bird into the dirt instead. #

I don't think the average dude thinks that way and that's why you see some of the comments posted here.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ April 23 2007,03:02)]To all American service men and women.

Thank you.
ditto

[K8MHZ]

Quote[/b] ]It is always newsworthy when something happens at an air show because the happening is a VERY rare occurance.

Not as rare as you think, Glen.

I studied air show crashes when I was the chief security staffing officer for our air show. #We were quite amazed to find out that we had fatalities at an air show in our own state. (Selfridge AFB). #There were many crashes that did not make main stream media. #My safety officer was an eyewitness at the Selfridge crash.



Quote[/b] ]The pilots and crews of military aviation are some of the most mature, most disciplined, and most responsible people you will find.

Not all of them. #One of the years we had the Blues here they were pompous a-holes.#They refused to follow rules, trashed hotel rooms, took rental cars across the state that weren't supposed to leave the county and damaged them. They made our local PD escort them at over 70 mph down a busy street that has a 35 mph speed limit on the way to a bar. #Their ground crew almost caused the air show to be shut down because they would not follow FAA rules and wanted to drive cars across an active runway during the show.

I had a personal confrontation with them when they refused to obey a one-way street sign because the driver didn't know his way back to the hotel.

Mature is the LAST word I would use to describe the pilots and crew that I met. #They made many enemies here and I am sure that had a less than positive effect on recruiting.

The first crew we had were not bad at all to work with. #(They rotate pilots every two years). #But after the second crew stuck it to us like they did there was none of us that worked with them that ever wanted them back.