Victims of plane crash were on flight with company that offers stunt rides
- Thread starter RDoug
- Start date
///AMG
Well-Known Member
Sorry to hear. Based on bio, sounds like he was RADM Gillcrist's son.
killbilly
Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
What part of this article makes you think the reporter is terrible at her job?
CFI A&P
Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
A friend of mine did one of their flights out Vegas. He showed me the video of the flight and I was surprised that they did what they did AND put it on film. Unless they had a waiver, I saw violations of 91.303 & 91.119.
I'm not saying that's what happened in this accident but given what my friend experienced it was only a matter of time before something happened.
Sent from my Startac using Tapatalk.
I'm not saying that's what happened in this accident but given what my friend experienced it was only a matter of time before something happened.
Sent from my Startac using Tapatalk.
Because it’s not stunt rides. The author actually gets it correct in the body of the article to only lose it on the headline. Which is atypical in the fact that reporters generally get the body of the article incorrect too.
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Um, I mean, as far as anybody outside our tiny segment of the population is concerned, they ARE stunt rides.
killbilly
Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
You probably want to know, then, that 98% of the time, reporters don't write the headlines for the articles. Those are usually done by the section editor or copy editor, depending on the publication.
The general public doesn't really know the difference between "stunt" flying and "simulated air combat flying" and "aerobatic flying" - and honestly, understanding that distinction doesn't really matter in this context.
I get what you're saying - pilots get all bent out of shape all the time about being misunderstood by the public. No one except other aviation people really understand the job.
Inverted
mmmmmm wine
You are on to more than you think. I hear there is video of them before this accident and the rumors are not good.
I think SCA has had 3 fatal accidents, but I know 2 for a fact within the last 2 years, hell it might even bee in the last year. I still know 2 people there but I don't know if the operation is still flying or not. Needless to say, their reputation sucks, especially in the aerobatic communities.
Inverted
mmmmmm wine
You bring up a great debate and point.
I have flown and taught aerobatics for the better part of a decade and I still do it part time. The term stunt pilot drives me freaking nuts, they are not stunts, not by any stretch. Now take SCA, who literally markets themselves as combat fighter pilots (none of them have ever touched a fighter so it is already laughable) that you can come fly air combat or do crazy stunt flying. This is their market. They do not provide aerobatic instruction, at least not on any level that is worth mentioning. Their market is the non pilot person who is looking for a thrill ride, and that is what the provide. There is a reason they have put 3 into the dirt...
On a really funny and heartbreaking note, I did some flying for the Science Channel on AF447 and I specifically told them not to call me a stunt pilot, and guess what they did...
NovemberEcho
Dergs favorite member
To the general public, any flying that is not straight and level from point a to point b is stunt flying. The article was written for the audience. No different than when they write about "in communication with the control tower" at FL350 over the middle of the Atlantic
CFI A&P
Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
That's the thing will thrill rides and aerobatic flying with people that have never done aerobatics before. They'll still have the same smile or fill a puke bag no matter the airplane. Someone that has never done any aerobatics before will have fun in an 8KCAB, Pitts, T-6, T-34, CAP10, etc... the only difference will be the hype leading up to and after it. An experienced aerobatic pilot will know the difference but that it is a different market, a Pitts pilot won't be buying a thrill ride. The average consumer won't know the difference between 1,500' agl or 3,000' agl.
It is disappointing that there were casualties. The best we can do is be safe, and stay out of the media.
NC-Sean
Well-Known Member
I actually interviewed with these guys and flew with the owner as part of the interview. Really just got a not great feeling about the operation in general and thought the flying was exciting but a bit more crazy than what I was looking for after leaving the Arctic in Alaska and I ended up not taking the job. This was about 6 months before the last crash they had. I'll reserve judgement until we find out what happened here, but you know what they say, "once is an accident, twice is a pattern"...
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
Speculation mode: On
I'm guesing that low level ops were part of the ACM thrill ride and probably played a role in the accident.
That aircraft will kindly recover from just about any hairball with adequate altitude and a moderate amount of aerobatic training.
I'm guesing that low level ops were part of the ACM thrill ride and probably played a role in the accident.
That aircraft will kindly recover from just about any hairball with adequate altitude and a moderate amount of aerobatic training.
D
Deleted member 27505
Guest
Word from anonymous source close to the principals suggests the company may be done. This the second one in a year and apparently their inspector and insurance company are getting froggy.
Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, the pattern doesn't happen until the third time.
If they "could care less" about their altitude, that indicates they still have some care about wanting to be higher or lower.
Last edited by a moderator:
Inverted
mmmmmm wine
If they "could care less" about their altitude, that indicates they still have some care about wanting to be higher or lower.
Cute, but the point remains, if somebody comes in wanting to scud run off the deck in any fashion, any half way decent operation will show them the door. It has no place, and SCA needs to go bye bye.
As was mentioned, You usually give 3 tries.
Once can be a fluke/accident
Twice can possibly be a coincidence
Three now starts a trend