Some people just like to show off...

[red750]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1144407988950964

[pmccarthy]

Surely broke every rule in the book?

 

Edit...surely another photoshop job?

 

 

[dutchroll]

Not photoshopped. Cargolux B747-8 freighter takeoff (empty) from Paine Field on a delivery flight.

 

- two Cargolux VPs for safety were in the cockpit

 

- internal safety investigation concluded "the position of the aircraft was excessive and unstable at times and was not compatible with aviation safety"

 

- internal email from Cargolux CEO stating that the aircraft could've crashed had the pilot not managed to regain control at the last moment

 

- pilot no longer flying with Cargolux

 

- one of the Cargolux VPs in the cockpit took an enforced "break" for 6 months following a letter of apology to management

 

I've read a lot of commentary from people who clearly have never laid hands on the controls of a big swept wing jet who reckon it was skilful and perfectly safe. That's crap. Any idiot can do it, and it's not perfectly safe at all.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

What was that great quote?

 

Truly superior pilots are those who use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills

 

 

[onetrack]

Old Koreelah - I prefer Douglas Baders quote - "There are old pilots, and bold pilots. There are no, old, bold pilots".

 

A psych study of these showoff pilot types must be interesting. I'm convinced there must a remarkable similarity with the faulty mindset of criminals - i.e. - the belief in criminals minds that they are too smart to be caught for their crimes. Naturally, 99.9% are caught.

 

Pilots who break company rules, air navigation rules, and manufacturers instructions for operating limits, must also believe they are too smart to be "caught out".

 

As with criminal minds, they cannot make the connection with the potential consequences of their actions, if their risk-taking goes wrong.

 

In the case above, the pilot obviously has not even entertained what the possible consequences of even something minor going wrong, could be.

 

Just a slight mechanical/electrical hiccup, or a mild amount of windshear, right at the worst moment, and there would have been 4 fatals in the aircraft, possibly more on the ground, and maybe a hundred million dollars worth of destruction. Then there would have been the years of litigation following the event.

 

What is particularly disturbing, is that the pilot had others lives in his hands - and he placed no value on them. This is the ultimate dereliction of duty of care, and the ultimate in immaturity and irresponsibility.

 

These adrenaline junky-type people are probably just fine sitting in a single-seat fighter and running everything to the limit and beyond.

 

They could probably make the fighter perform well beyond the manufacturers limits - and isn't that what they're there for?

 

But when it comes to acting safely and responsibly, taking no risks when none are required to be taken, and taking great care with others lives entrusted to them - then they fail miserably - and they should never placed in these job positions.

 

There can never be any justification for aerobatic-style manoeuvres, in non-aerobatic aircraft, when none are called for.

 

If it was a case of having to do so, in an emergency, to try and rescue the situation - well, yes, there is more than adequate justification for that.

 

Lt "Bud" Holland only lived his entire shortened life, to provide a perfect example of an adrenaline-driven risk-taker, placed in the wrong job - and to show others where these types of pilots always end up - dead, and usually taking innocents with them.

 

Interestingly, I was reading where Holland taught a number of other younger pilots to act exactly as he did - ignoring rules and limits - and these pilots then had to undergo rigorous re-training, to correct their "Holland-style" attitude towards risk-taking, and "pushing the envelope".

 

 

[IBob]

"Old Koreelah - I prefer Douglas Baders quote - "There are old pilots, and bold pilots. There are no, old, bold pilots"."

 

Curious that you start your...erm...contribution...with a quote from a man who survived by luck alone his own low level aerobatic efforts; was nevertheless catapulted to fame as first class propaganda material in WW2; and if you read what actually went on at Colditz now we're finally getting past that propaganda, contributed greatly to the misery of his fellow prisoners by his behaviours there.

 

While I doubt anyone here actually condones stupidity, and certainly not the risking of other people's lives, it would be a sad and grey world if there were not those who walk a little closer to the edge....for all the finger wagging of the dull noncontibuting majority.

 

In my view...

 

 

[onetrack]

IBob, I think I've pointed out there's plenty of positions for daring fighter pilots and aerobatics pilots, who love to display their skills pushing the envelope. Let's not just place them in a position where they can endanger the innocents. There are 11 innocent dead people in the U.K. as a result of one surviving stuntmans inability to make the link to the consequences of the failure of his manoeuvre.

 

 

[IBob]

Ah, there it is:

 

"Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots."

 

— E. Hamilton Lee, 'Ham' Lee began his long and distinguished career as an instructor pilot during World War I. After leaving the Army Air Corps, he flew the airmail for United Air Services, later United Airlines. The —old pilots, bold pilots— statement was made on his retirement from United Air Lines in 1949. 'Ham' Lee did indeed become an old pilot. On his 100th birthday he flew a restored United Airlines DC-3.

 

 

As I already said, I doubt anyone is condoning stupidity or the risking of the lives of others. But there has also to be room for this:

 

"What kind of man would live where there is no daring? I don't believe in taking foolish chances, but nothing can be accomplished without taking any chance at all."

 

— Charles A. Lindbergh, at a news conference after his trans-Atlantic flight.

 

 

 

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Interesting discussion fellas. You're both right, but I'd tend to side with Lindbergh. Those in charge of big sky busses need to have a bit of nous; perhaps the ideal is a highly skilled pilot who gets his kicks flying a variety of types on his days off, and keeps his urges under control during his working week. Sully demonstrated the value of that on the Hudson.

 

 

[IBob]

Aye. I didn't mean to drag it off topic.

 

It's just that when I came to this part of the world in the '70s, part of the appeal was that if you were stupid enough to kill yourself, you could go right ahead.

 

Now we have entire industries sprung up, ostensibly about keeping us all 'safe', but we all know what they really are, is proliferating empires that suck up money while dampening creativity and initiative. And there's no stopping them now we've let them out of the box, as everywhere you look there is fresh 'risk'. Gosh, makes you wonder how our fathers and our grandfathers dared poke their noses out the front door every morning, don't it?

 

And here's a thing, too: in the late 60s, working alongside American servicemen, some of them were drafted into the military police: it changed them and how they behaved remarkably fast. And think something similar happens when ordinary humans become safety inspectors. No, I didn't have a brush with them yet, I just detest what this is doing to us.

 

Before Chichester made his reputation sailing round the world, he flew round it (mostly) in the early '30s, in a Gypsy Moth.

 

Later he wrote or compiled a number of books, including one called 'Along the Clipper Way', which is extracts from writings or logs from the old sailing days.

 

I believe that 'risk' is a very relative thing. To get a glimpse of that, take as look at what was in a 'normal' day for the sailors in that book.

 

Right. End of rant....

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Ri would like to know what the relative risks were of sailing from England to Australia in 1860 and flying it today, in terms of lives lost per arrival. I suspect that the sailing record is not as bad as we think, only a few vessels lost, but much riskier than flying. Has anyone ever calculated this?

 

 

[onetrack]

It's very hard to do comparisons, because we live in a relatively healthy world today, with huge advances in medicine, and very good treatment and control of diseases.

 

The actual ship losses were reasonably low - because the sailors and ship captains of the day were quite competent.

 

Most shipwrecks occurred when approaching coastlines, and unmarked, unlit, or hidden reefs and rocks.

 

The most dangerous areas were the Southern and Western coastlines of Australia - the infamous "shipwreck coasts".

 

There are in excess of 1100 known shipwrecks on the West Australian coast, with the largest number being sailing ships.

 

The dangers of sea voyages increased when shipping converted to the Great Circle route in the 1850's, via the lower latitudes, to gain the speed advantage of the "roaring forties".

 

The levels of seasickness then increased substantially, and serious numbers of people died as a result of severe seasickness.

 

It was not uncommon for dozens of passengers to die on a trip, and if a trip ended with only a dozen deaths, it was regarded as a very successful trip.

 

One captain received a lot of kudos for only losing 7 pax on his trip, in the mid-1800's.

 

Steamships rapidly became much more reliable, and shipping became much safer as a result, from around 1880. Steamships were no longer at the mercy of the winds, as sailing ships were.

 

Disease was rife in the 1700's and 1800's, and this was the major reason for deaths on the long sea voyages.

 

Hygiene was poor, there was no knowledge of germs or bacteria or viruses, and there was no cure for even relatively minor complaints.

 

You got sick, you often died - there was little by way of medicine, and little by way of life-saving surgery. Many a time, "medical cures" in bottles were nothing less than poisons.

 

Measles and smallpox were rife and nearly always fatal, particularly for children. The level of deaths amongst the children on early sea trips was horrendous.

 

As a typical indicator of medicine progress, my own grandmother (on Mums side) died in Scotland around 1913 - due to blood poisoning (septicaemia). There was no cure for septicaemia in 1913 and the docs weren't even sure what caused it. Today, a dose of broad-spectrum antibiotics will fix it and survival rates are very high.

 

Penicillin wasn't perfected until 1941, although it was first discovered in 1928.

 

From that point on, penicillin and the related antibiotics that followed, have saved hundreds of millions of lives from infections that would have previously killed them - including a large number of WW2 soldiers and sailors and airmen.

 

Then there's the time factor to consider. Sea trips from the U.K to Australia took months, flying today only consumes 2-3 days. So, on that basis, the comparison is essentially flawed.

 

Then there's the fact that todays flying is so safe, it borders on boring. If it was still early days of flying, and the pax numbers the same as today, the death toll would be in the multiple dozens weekly.

 

Sailing Routes: Museum Victoria

 

The Journey - by Sailing Ship | Maritime Museum of Tasmania

 

 

[Bats]

There is some argument as to the exact words used in the "old vs bold pilots" quote, personally I prefer the version that ends; "but there are very few old, bold pilots". I don't count myself amongst them, being fairly risk averse and well short of old (aren't we all?), but know several that I would include and frankly if the chips were down, they are the one's I'd want behind the controls. Not being swept wing jet qualified, I comment on the original video with a degree of trepidation, however there was nothing there that impressed me, looked like Capt. Hamfist was at the controls and nothing like the smooth, precise handling displays I've seen conducted with several airliners, up to and including a 747 400.