- cross-posted to:
- damnthatsinteresting@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- damnthatsinteresting@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
I was initially quite suprised that there has been two seperate air crashes in the last month of military excersises here in Aus, but seeing this makes those start to make a bit more sense
This is older than the reddit api controversy and exodus
So… Not that old?
Probably around a year or two before the api controversy based on what I can recall
It’s flying over a river not over people or buildings. Just some info for the terminally outraged.
the river isn’t that wide. also it just seems so unnecessarily dangerous.
IIRC there’s an onboard view that’s pretty cool as well
Lotta armchair pilots in this thread
Always is, which is even more fun when you’re an actual pilot.
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?
thats definitly cgi, dafuq
It’s a regular thing, not sure why you think it’s CGI.
i am no pilot, but a typical one would be frightened if saw such plane would fly that low, especially between skyscrapers like that…anyway, thats also taxpayer freedom money not put in very good use
Morale, recruiting and training value. Low level flying is one of the C-17’s main mission sets. If it wasn’t doing it here it would be doing the exact same thing somewhere else.
i thought chinooks were intended for that kind of usage, but i am no expert…u seem to be informed enough that i shouldn’t argue much. TIL
Chinooks are used for specific tactical insertion. C-17s are both strategic and tactical airlift, the latter of which involves delivery (either by airdrop or landing at forward fields) in radar contested environments which is accomplished with low level flying. 300 feet above ground level at 300+ knots is normal for this. They are flying much slower here to give a better show, which gives them a much tighter turn radius and more time to react. It’s also a meticulously planned and practiced route.
They are flying much slower here to give a better show, which gives them a much tighter turn radius and more time to react. It’s also a meticulously planned and practiced route.
sounds like it really
It’s no big secret, they have 360 in cockpit views showing the process from the crew’s point of view. They’re also flying with their flaps out which limits them to below 250 knots.
