DC-4 flybye with starboard propellors feathered

[Doc]

I just wonder who the DC4 driver was trying to impress? The average "Joe" off the street would have no reason to find what he did as "unusual", and the more experienced "pilot" might find it "foolhardy". Thoughts?

[robertsailor1]

OK here are my thoughts. Pilots have egos, well at least the males, LOL. The airshow type pilots like to demonstrate their superior skills by flying in a manner that most pilots find border line reckless. The average airshow goer Mom Dad and little Billy really don't know the difference between inside and out side maneuvers. Have a big noisy biplane doing sportsman type (inside) aerobatics and it usually thrills them as much or more than a little Pitts doing tumble acts and inverted flat spins. But we all know that people like to go to NASCAR in part to be there if a big accident occurs. You just have to watch a freeway when an accident occurs and they get it cleared off to the side but everyone just "has" to slow down to a crawl to have a look.
So the demonstrators do acts that we all would think might end up in the ground and unfortunately from time to time some do. Its what keeps people coming back.
Personally some of the flying is so technical that it is for pilots to watch because the average stiff doesn't really know whats going on. The DC-4 flyby video is for pilots and it sure is getting the play. My point was is he really that good on a consistent basis or was he lucky. My guess is that he is an exceptional pilot and has skills far beyond most DC-4 drivers just like Bob Hoover had in the Shrike. Its only a guess because that maneuver would have needed a fair amount of practice before he did it at those altitudes.
I'm rambling here, need my morning pick me up.

[Beefitarian]

I honestly hope there are very few people going to air shows wanting to see an accident. "Yee haw, I'm going to watch someone eject from a fighter jet!"

I hope even more there are no pilots thinking, "Let's give them what they want. I'm going to try to keep it in one piece here but let's face it. What I'm doing is going to go wrong eventually. I've just been lucky up to now."

I have to think the pilot right or wrong must believe they can do the maneuver safely due to their high degree of skill. Maybe he was trying to impress himself. I'm not condoning such a thing and I like to think I have out grown it but, I remember the, "I bet I can do this." age with various forms of ground transportation.

[Rowdy]

That looked to me like some serious crew co-ordination! I have no doubt in my mind that whoever was in the right seat wasnt just along for the ride. If not and it was flown single pilot.. holy mother of f........ that guy must have 8 arms and balls the size of watermelons and a skillset few of you can even grasp..

I know a lot of you let ego come in to play and figure others must be the same way. Maybe just maybe he was enjoying himself at the level he knew he could fly the airplane. Some people strive for technical accuracy merely for their own personal satisfaction..

[Doc]

I noticed he brought both back to life at the same time. If one had come out of feather and failed to catch, it would have become very interesting indeed. Nothing to do with ego, or ball size. Has to do with keeping your speed up, or your power down.

[robertsailor1]

Whether is ground level aerobatics or flying DC-4's the pilot has to rely on everything working on his aircraft. All he can do is make sure he does his part. Even a simple hammerhead at low level is pretty much a hole in the ground if you lose power. None of this stuff has a very high safety margin but that being said we drown way more boaters who decide its Ok to get pissed up and go boating. We accept that a drunk boater makes poor decisions forgetting about the fact that he was the one to make that decision to begin with. I'd prefer to use your stupid comment for the boater.

[TG]

The thing that Bob Hoover had with him is this huuuuge amount of unique past flying experiences.
Starting at a very young age with all sort of aircraft types, dealing with all sort of troubles and managing to get away with it.

His well known flying experiences made all his flying demonstrations very impressive but still comfortable to see.
We don't talk about "balls of steel or being dumb" with him. Just talents!


About this DC-4 demo.
No problem I'm very impressed about it.
It is just out of my comfort zone to watch since I know Jackass about the crew.
So, like many, I will refer them to the terms of "Iron Balls or being stupids"

Nothing about talents.....Yet.



This DC-4 kind of looks like a Pit Bull.
Unleashed for the first time of its life. And allowed to run as hard as it wanted into the field.
The gamble worked, it ran everywhere but not away and it didn't bite anybody in the process!

[robertsailor1]

Nothing wrong with that view, its probably a view that most folks here share with you. My only point was that whoever was flying that aircraft was probably a very gifted pilot and if he keeps that up and doesn't bury himself then maybe we will look at his flying from a talent view as you suggest as we all did with Hoover.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Nothing wrong with that view, its probably a view that most folks here share with you. My only point was that whoever was flying that aircraft was probably a very gifted pilot and if he keeps that up and doesn't bury himself then maybe we will look at his flying from a talent view as you suggest as we all did with Hoover.

IMO Bob Hoover would never have flown this routine because it has a the aircraft's energy vector pointed towards the crowd and some unrecoverable situations if everything does not go according to plan. All Of Bob Hoovers acts gives him an out at every part of the routine.

This is the same mindset that resulted in the USAF B52 (Barksdale) and C 17 (Anchorage) and RAF Nimrod (Toronto) tragedies.

Bottom line: comparing this clown to Bob Hoover is an insult to a great aviator

[JMACK]

http://www.airportjournals.com/Display. ... ID=0409002

How many POW's have you heard of breaking out and stealing an enemy fighter and flying it to saftey........WOW!

No Ego just awesome!

[iflyforpie]

All Of Bob Hoovers acts gives him an out at every part of the routine.

And this... ladies and gentlemen.. is how we fly aircraft. Always with a safe out whether it is IFR, VFR, mountain flying, float flying, soaring, or aerobatics. Bob Hoover could do what he did not because of his impressive flying skills, but that his impressive flying skills gave him options if things went south.

[robertsailor1]

works for me

[sky's the limit]

I was really trying to avoid this one, but I just can't. The hypocrisy is just a bit much.

Day after day, year after year, we read thread after thread lamenting the degradation of hands and feet flying skills yet, when presented with an example of it there are howls of protest. I love it. "Stupid," "Idiot," 'endangering the crowd..."

Most flying in this day and age requires very little commitment. I know, I know, you all feel 100% committed to what you are doing, but I will float the idea that it is something measured on a sliding scale, and the vast majority of you perform functions where there is extremely low tolerance for it going sideways, ie moving people around. Some of you work in other areas of this industry where you know full well that commitment is sometimes the ONLY thing that gets you through a particular part of a flight. In helicopters, especially in mountain and long line work like building towers or power lines for example, the pilots are heavily committed most of the time, and as much as we try to give ourselves "outs," they simply aren't there in many cases. This is why we enjoy it so much. This is what keeps me doing it despite all the BS that goes with it.

So, to see a video of a very committed crew performing some very clean maneuvers in a gorgeous old airplane brings joy to my heart. It is something I can commend, and can appreciate. I would hate to see what most of you would say about most of the work we do day in, and day out... So glad its usually out of film range.

Can't we just get off the soap box for one minute to enjoy some nice flying?

stl

[Rowdy]

I was really trying to avoid this one, but I just can't. The hypocrisy is just a bit much.

Day after day, year after year, we read thread after thread lamenting the degradation of hands and feet flying skills yet, when presented with an example of it there are howls of protest. I love it. "Stupid," "Idiot," 'endangering the crowd..."

Most flying in this day and age requires very little commitment. I know, I know, you all feel 100% committed to what you are doing, but I will float the idea that it is something measured on a sliding scale, and the vast majority of you perform functions where there is extremely low tolerance for it going sideways, ie moving people around. Some of you work in other areas of this industry where you know full well that commitment is sometimes the ONLY thing that gets you through a particular part of a flight. In helicopters, especially in mountain and long line work like building towers or power lines for example, the pilots are heavily committed most of the time, and as much as we try to give ourselves "outs," they simply aren't there in many cases. This is why we enjoy it so much. This is what keeps me doing it despite all the BS that goes with it.

So, to see a video of a very committed crew performing some very clean maneuvers in a gorgeous old airplane brings joy to my heart. It is something I can commend, and can appreciate. I would hate to see what most of you would say about most of the work we do day in, and day out... So glad its usually out of film range.

Can't we just get off the soap box for one minute to enjoy some nice flying?

stl

STL - you always seem to put eloquently what I seem to stumble through bluntly. Cheers to you my friend.

[. ._]

I wonder if this is STL "flying".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mJDNr61 ... re=related

-istp

[sky's the limit]

I wonder if this is STL "flying".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mJDNr61 ... re=related

-istp

Nope.

But I'm pretty sure I know where that is, and have indeed landed on that railing if it's the same spot. I was wondering how long it would take.... you get the prize Istp.

stl

[Big Pistons Forever]

I was really trying to avoid this one, but I just can't. The hypocrisy is just a bit much.

Day after day, year after year, we read thread after thread lamenting the degradation of hands and feet flying skills yet, when presented with an example of it there are howls of protest. I love it. "Stupid," "Idiot," 'endangering the crowd..."

Most flying in this day and age requires very little commitment. I know, I know, you all feel 100% committed to what you are doing, but I will float the idea that it is something measured on a sliding scale, and the vast majority of you perform functions where there is extremely low tolerance for it going sideways, ie moving people around. Some of you work in other areas of this industry where you know full well that commitment is sometimes the ONLY thing that gets you through a particular part of a flight. In helicopters, especially in mountain and long line work like building towers or power lines for example, the pilots are heavily committed most of the time, and as much as we try to give ourselves "outs," they simply aren't there in many cases. This is why we enjoy it so much. This is what keeps me doing it despite all the BS that goes with it.

So, to see a video of a very committed crew performing some very clean maneuvers in a gorgeous old airplane brings joy to my heart. It is something I can commend, and can appreciate. I would hate to see what most of you would say about most of the work we do day in, and day out... So glad its usually out of film range.

Can't we just get off the soap box for one minute to enjoy some nice flying?

stl

Good hands and feet only mean anything if they are used responsibly. In your post you are saying, establishing an energy vector directly at the crowd, doing two engine out gear down low energy passes and low level loops in a airliner requires "commitment". I could not disagree more, it only requires an unwillingness to make informed risk reward decisions. As someone with time in heavy piston powered aircraft I can say in my opinion this display routine has insane levels of risk.

The sad part is there is no need for such extreme manoevers to effectively demonstrate a great old aircraft. The Red Bull DC6 puts on a great show case without any of the silliness on display here

[Cat Driver]

The hands and feet skills that were displayed in that video are not the real issue here.

It was the risk factor that was accepted by the pilot / 's that very few of the spectators were aware of.

[robertsailor1]

Lets for a minute remove the crowd and just talk about the flying.

[sky's the limit]

BPF,

Forgive me if I don't follow.

You say you disagree that "doing two engine out gear down low energy passes and low level loops in a airliner requires "commitment." I'm not sure what definition you are going by, but I have plenty of airplane time, some of it in aerobatics, and I have to say they looked pretty committed to me.

Then you say, "As someone with time in heavy piston powered aircraft I can say in my opinion this display routine has insane levels of risk." So it is insanely risky, but not committed? Risky to who then, the crowd and not the pilots? I would say there was risk on both sides, the issue I think you are driving at is that the crowd did not accept that risk as they were probably oblivious to it.

I think that you have a problem with the angles relative to the crowd, that is not what I'm talking about. I'm discussing the flying, and imho it's great to see. Is it right to be doing that type of thing in such close proximity to the people? Probably not, no. But almost anything I look upon in my life with fondness, either in aviation or out, are things where I was committed, had little room for error, and was able to perform well and to the best of my abilities. Taking the crowd out for one moment, I think it was some fabulous flying. On the edge of 'safe?' sure, but I for one liked to see it.

I just cannot understand the Avcan mentality of carving EVERYTHING up into pieces. I just don't get it, perhaps I'm missing something?

stl

[Cat Driver]

Lets for a minute remove the crowd and just talk about the flying.

Those of us who understand the skills needed to fly that display have stated the pilot has exceptional skills.

Some of us actually hold airdisplay authorities issued for flying in airshows and also understand the risk that pilot accepted were not worth the display value...at least that is my own opinion.

By the way, my airdisplay authority was issued under JAR and would have been revoked anywhere in Europe had I flown that display because it would have violated the rules under which I was approved....so maybe if I were a Canadian air show pilot it would have been O.K. ?

[TG]

This below is good definition of "being committed"
Touch-Roll-Touch in F-104.


For me: It is as amazing to see as just a totally unnecessary zero margin for error kind of situation.






As one of the only two doing it discovered later on.

[W5]

Shortly after that video (F104) was taken, one of them trying that stunt crashed into the crewroom at Kleine Brogel. 9 killed.

[straightpilot]

Ok, one could then put forth the following conclusion:

-> Not all pilots possess the same level of skill

One can either agree or disagree with the above statement. Binary.

DISAGREE: Some people might think that all pilots possess the same amount of skill, and thus the only reasonable conclusion when something bad happens, is that someone must simply have been "unlucky".

AGREE: Some people might think that different pilots possess different skill levels. If that is true, then some pilots can safely do things in airplanes that others cannot (e.g. Bob Hoover).

However, there is a strong subset amongst the "AGREE" group above, that in the interest of universal safety, that pilots should be restricted to only flying to the level of skill of the weakest pilot, for whatever reason.

This is all pretty silly, IMHO. That means that no one can fly in cloud any more, because the weakest pilot cannot, and no pilot can do something that the weakest pilot cannot.

I should do stand-up comedy.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

If that is true, then some pilots can safely do things in airplanes that others cannot (e.g. Bob Hoover).

You brought Bob Hoover into this issue to use as a comparison.

You do not see the risk level difference between Bob Hoover's flying, especially with regard to public safety and the way that crew flew the display in that video?

Risk evaluation is one of the most important parts of the pilot decision making process.