this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
119 points (96.9% liked)
Crazy Fucking Videos
5827 readers
1 users here now
Dive into the World of Insane Videos!
Rules
- No hate speech of any kind.
- Content warnings are required in post titles where applicable. Example: [CW: Injury]
- Use your best judgement and mark NSFW posts as such.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Like, wtf?
It's for an annual airshow.
That's fuckin stupid.
I mean, it's an annual airshow. It's done every year without an issue, it's not more dangerous than normal military flying if done correctly.
I think the "if done correctly" is the part they're worried about. Accidents do happen at airshows. Still though, what an experience to see that.
Simple low level flying is one of the safer things they show off at airshows. This really isn't anywhere near as dangerous as people with no experience or training in it think it is.
Humans make mistakes. That's just a simple fact.
This stunt is putting lives at risk. And for what, marketing purposes? That's just stupid.
Very little in flying is left to chance or simple human execution. If there is an actual risk, it has been identified, discussed and mitigated from multiple angles. That is why the C-17 has a min crew of 3 and they fly this with at least 5. Two pilots and two additional observers in the jump seats. Every obstacle is known, charted, identified and visually acquired before they are allowed to continue without climbing. The route is closely monitored and built into the mission computer to ensure they are sticking to it. There are calculated margins and buffers with triggers should any be breached with sufficient excess to allow an escape maneuver before anything bad happens. People who don't know what they are talking about thinking it is dangerous doesn't make it dangerous.
Ok, so what about this one C-17 that crashed in Alaska in 2010 practicing for an air show?
Its stupid to be that confident in anything. What if an engine fails? A control surface? What if the plane breaks in half? Maybe those are unlikely to happen but is the risk worth killing hundreds if not thousands of unsuspecting people?
Its a 100 ton machine flying at 300km/h between buildings in a populated city. It doesn’t matter how much people believe it’s safe, nothing is ever 100% safe and here the risks are too high while the reward is simply a cool stunt.
The profile they were flying is wildly different from what is being done here. If an engine fails it can fly on 3 just fine, that is why for low levels any time there is a ridge crossing you have a 3-engine climb point so that should you lose an engine you can still clear the obstacle. Control surfaces are redundant and controlled by multiple hydraulic systems. Should you lose 3 of 4 hydraulics you can still control it. The plane has been stress tested to know safe limits for forces placed on it, any time these are exceeded in depth inspections are required before it flies again. Beyond that it has known service life intervals for all parts, to include structural bracing, that have mandatory inspections far before failure.
The Alaska airshow crash was pure pilot error by exceeding permitted limits for demonstrations. They quietly changed the profile to try and make it more impressive and eventually pushed it too far. It is also surprisingly hard to recreate in the simulator because the plane literally just wants to fly and prevent that crash from happening. Meanwhile Riverfire is the exact opposite with every step of the process being fully open and inspected by the community and flight safety professionals involved.
BTW, I am a C-17 pilot and a trained flight safety officer/mishap investigator. I have personally walked through the remaining wreckage of the Elmendorf crash. What are your qualifications to decide how safe or dangerous this is?
Im a human being, I know other human beings get too cocky and then apologize on television. Ive seen it happen.
Besides, I bet the military thinks its one hundred thousand percent safe, but i cant trust people who obediently go and kill innocent people because someone “higher up” told them so and justified it with “greater good”.
People make mistakes, machines fail, and the people who build the Titanic were that confident in it too. BTW your typing is lightning fast.
Funny, I've never gone on to kill innocent people, or anyone. I've delivered vaccines to remote islands and flown critical patients though. Hell, I've even carried multiple pallets of cupcakes. But sure, tell me my personal morals about what you don't know about my job, which seems to be a trend here where you seem to have very strong opinions on something you have zero experience with.
I don't care if the risk is only 1% or less. I don't care what your qualifications are. There's no scenario where any amount of risk is worth a payoff that only benefits the military.
Go fly over a fucking field where the only risk is to yourself. This shit is stupid. All it takes is one bad mechanical failure to kill dozens of hundreds of people, and for no reason. But of course pilots are arrogant dicks who think it can never happen to them, as your comments prove. The fact that you care more about showing off says it all.
That mentality would render every single airport in a city useless since planes fly low over populated residential areas all the time.
There isn't a single thing with 0% risk, that is a stupid standard to have for anything in life from a risk management perspective. If the risk to something is less than the inherent risk of walking down stairs or driving to work then avoiding it just because isn't being smart, it's being ignorant. It doesn't take one bad mechanical failure, there are redundancies. Potential failures are calculated, studies and mitigated. In the early days of airplanes and low level flying it was very risky and there were many accidents; we have learned from them and applied the lessons. No, the risk isn't 0, but it is well within the tolerance of risks that you take every day.