2 people safely eject from jet that later crashed during Thunder Over Michigan air show 8/13/2023

[Wardogg]

Because the performance envelope they exist in, the likelihood of critical malfunction, the redundancy available to the aviator in those circumstances, and the suitability of emergency landing/ditching don’t dictate it.

You’ve got no shortage of people who fly those aircraft types explaining it. They’ve also explained there is no benefit to simply “riding it in,” in a host of situations. Viper Demo •s it’s hydraulics and is now an unpowered dart… well sucks to be that guy, we disabled his seat so he won’t pull the • handle too early. If he slammed into a crowd we can all somehow feel better about that outcome?

Again, why are GA spin pilots allowed to fly with a chute. They knew the risks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Do you believe those in in the military have a moral and ethical obligation to protect the public at all costs? Aviation or not?

 

[Nihon_Ni]

Do you believe those in in the military have a moral and ethical obligation to protect the public at all costs? Aviation or not?

No. That's clearly not the military's mission. Title 10 lays it out pretty well.

 

[Lawman]

Do you believe those in in the military have a moral and ethical obligation to protect the public at all costs? Aviation or not?

Read @AMG post above this one. We already do our due diligence. What about the back seaters in 2 seat aircraft? Do they need to ride it in too? Can we get an exception for WSOs/NAVs on this new theory of safety?

The idea of safe’ing seats to force some kind of added protection is stupid. Considering the first person to suggest it, that shouldn’t surprise anybody.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pilot Fighter]

Smyrna was a G-loc mid demo. It doesn't really matter when it was, or that we make the distinction of what happened, in the context of this conversation. Was pretty tragic, I had friends on the team then too. Have friends on the team now too (one of them was a student of mine a number of years ago). I guess my point in asking that question was mostly to clarify that this wasn't some warbird dude with no training. To be clear, flying your fleet aircraft, but with the ejection seat safed to somehow satisfy some public optic once you are on the team, would be a total non-starter. Like was said, there have been zero US Mil demo team accidents that have resulted in ground fatalities, at least that I am aware of. There have also been, as far as I can tell, zero incidents of ejection seat aircraft pilots successfully "sticking with it to avoid ground fatalities".......this whole idea is a lame myth. It defies physics. There is a reason they survey the demo box, and fly the ground tracks they do. So far, it has been working. Can't speak for the Italians of course.

I think you have to go back to the 1940’s or 1950’s to find an airshow ground fatality related to a military aircraft.

As far as sticking with it, it’s pretty much mythology, with one exception. In the 80’s, a Thunderbird pilot stuck with it and was killed. Radio calls confirm his concern about folks on the ground. I don’t know the details.

I remember this only because he shared the same last name as family friend Fred Hauk, A-6 driver, Whidbey guy, and shuttle astronaut.

 

[SteveC]

Is anybody else baffled by the fact that the folks that demand that these pilots sacrifice themselves to protect the public, are at the opposite end of the argument when it comes to self-sacrificing to protect the public from Covid? Shouldn't the same idealogy prevail?

 

[pwttogfk]

It’s fascinating learning about military aircraft escape systems from the folks here with significant expertise. It’s equal parts entertaining and infuriating seeing others try to tell them that they don’t know what they’re talking about.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Is anybody else baffled by the fact that the folks that demand that these pilots sacrifice themselves to protect the public, are at the opposite end of the argument when it comes to self-sacrificing to protect the public from Covid? Shouldn't the same idealogy prevail?

Today on the retirement schedule, bingo at 1030am followed by grasping straws at 11.

 

[NovemberEcho]

It’s fascinating learning about military aircraft escape systems from the folks here with significant expertise. It’s equal parts entertaining and infuriating seeing others try to tell them that they don’t know what they’re talking about.

I don’t see anyone telling anyone they don’t know what they’re talking about. I see one person advocating for disabling the ejection seat for airshows, but if I recall correctly he is/was also a military aviator.

 

[Wardogg]

Is anybody else baffled by the fact that the folks that demand that these pilots sacrifice themselves to protect the public, are at the opposite end of the argument when it comes to self-sacrificing to protect the public from Covid? Shouldn't the same idealogy prevail?

False equivalency thou art defined.

 

[SteveC]

Is anybody else baffled by the fact that the folks that demand that these pilots sacrifice themselves to protect the public, are at the opposite end of the argument when it comes to self-sacrificing to protect the public from Covid? Shouldn't the same idealogy prevail?

False equivalency thou art defined.

I don't know about that. In both cases an individual is making a decision that can potentially put members of the general public at peril (up to and including death). In one case you want to limit that individual's choices (and possibly condemn him/her to death as a result), while in the other you refuse to control an individual's actions (or inactions) as a matter of civil liberty, even though it may imperil many more people than the sacrificial pilot can.

 

[Wardogg]

I don't know about that. In both cases an individual is making a decision that can potentially put members of the general public at peril (up to and including death). In one case you want to limit that individual's choices (and possibly condemn him/her to death as a result), while in the other you refuse to control an individual's actions (or inactions) as a matter of civil liberty, even though it may imperil many more people than the sacrificial pilot can.

Ok. I just found out Gryder is on my side.....I may need to rethink this.

 

[knot4u]

I don't know about that. In both cases an individual is making a decision that can potentially put members of the general public at peril (up to and including death). In one case you want to limit that individual's choices (and possibly condemn him/her to death as a result), while in the other you refuse to control an individual's actions (or inactions) as a matter of civil liberty, even though it may imperil many more people than the sacrificial pilot can.

I have a novel concept, our government was not established as a ruling class but that's what it's turned into. Death by a thousand cuts, that's all of your presumptive freedoms floating away like a fart in the wind bit by bit from every new piece of legislation (law) these people that have never signed the front of a payroll check have decided that despite your refrain they know better what your best interests are and you will not question their authority under threat of imprisonment or worse. I'm going to ask you an honest question and I'd appreciate an honest answer. Do you think the Great Experiment has failed and human nature has once again defeated any efforts to build a new system of government that actually helps everyone equally?

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

I don't know about that. In both cases an individual is making a decision that can potentially put members of the general public at peril (up to and including death). In one case you want to limit that individual's choices (and possibly condemn him/her to death as a result), while in the other you refuse to control an individual's actions (or inactions) as a matter of civil liberty, even though it may imperil many more people than the sacrificial pilot can.

That’s not even remotely close to the same thing.

 

[knot4u]

Despite anyones best efforts we're by nature brutal, ruthless, unapologetic and most of all, our worst trait, greedy. If you've ever had more than two dogs as pets at the same time depending on how you've raised them you'll see arguments about food, you'd probably laugh it off and figure out a work around. We are no different.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjApB6IiQKE&t=103s

 

[zmiller4]

That’s not even remotely close to the same thing.

This is true.

Forcing air show pilots to disable ejection seats likely would have save zero net lives. Everyone showing basic courtesy and following minimal health guidelines during Covid would have saved tens of thousands.

 

[SteveC]

I have a novel concept, our government was not established as a ruling class but that's what it's turned into. Death by a thousand cuts, that's all of your presumptive freedoms floating away like a fart in the wind bit by bit from every new piece of legislation (law) these people that have never signed the front of a payroll check have decided that despite your refrain they know better what your best interests are and you will not question their authority under threat of imprisonment or worse.

Seventy word sentences are a bit tough to follow. Just saying.

I'm going to ask you an honest question and I'd appreciate an honest answer. Do you think the Great Experiment has failed and human nature has once again defeated any efforts to build a new system of government that actually helps everyone equally?

Honest answer is no.

(Not going to tell you which part(s) of that convoluted question I responded "no" to though. Suggest you work on asking better questions if you're actually interested in someone's thoughts. Honestly.)

 

[knot4u]

Seventy word sentences are a bit tough to follow. Just saying.

Honest answer is no.

(Not going to tell you which part(s) of that convoluted question I responded "no" to though. Suggest you work on asking better questions if you're actually interested in someone's thoughts. Honestly.)

Playing coy. You know exactly what I'm asking about. That's fine, you have no credibility. You might have credibility with your sycophants but that's not my concern. The world is falling apart around you but you're safe, retired and warm so all of the things you've voted for are working. For you. You can't pretend to be a social justice warrior fighting for young people as you profit from stripping them of their chance to benefit from what you're enjoying. What would you rather see, end unemployment benefits or end social security?

 

[knot4u]

This is true.

Forcing air show pilots to disable ejection seats likely would have save zero net lives. Everyone showing basic courtesy and following minimal health guidelines during Covid would have saved tens of thousands.

Which guidelines? Masks? Closing beaches and hiking trails? Shutting down schools? No, all of that nonsense cost plenty of lives and the impact of the short sighted, grab for power policies will reverberate for years. I'm just speculating but if we'd have just continued on without all of your dumb knee jerk reactions we would not be in the turmoil we currently swim in. Yes, people died, everything the bureaucrats forced upon us didn't move the needle up or down, but they solidified their unelected positions. I'm not a Covid denier, I actually got very sick in 2019, the sickest I can ever recall, and I asked the doctors about this "NEW SUPER BUG" rumored to be floating around. I was told in no uncertain terms that I didn't have it and I'd be fine. Did I have it? In retrospect I have to assume I was an "Early Adapter" and my medical provider had no idea what to do. Steroid shots in both butt cheeks, a nebulizer and a Z-pack and they sent me on my way with a prescription for an inhaler. It took a few days but i was right up enough to go back to work and then the world decided to stop. If you think our reaction to Covid was appropriate you're just dumb. Should we close the schools today because we're moving into Covid season? What do you want!?

 

[Bob Ridpath]

Playing coy. You know exactly what I'm asking about. That's fine, you have no credibility. You might have credibility with your sycophants but that's not my concern. The world is falling apart around you but you're safe, retired and warm so all of the things you've voted for are working. For you. You can't pretend to be a social justice warrior fighting for young people as you profit from stripping them of their chance to benefit from what you're enjoying. What would you rather see, end unemployment benefits or end social security?

I'm generally lost these days, but why must either end?

 

[knot4u]

I'm generally lost these days, but why must either end?

The burden of taking care of the elders is noble and should not be a point of conflict for the youth. Using that money to finance the lazy youth is idiotic. Unemployment, welfare, food stamps and disability benefits are supposed to be a parachute, not a hammock on the beach. You worked all of your life, are your SS payments covering the bills? Where'd that money go? Not sure I have a solution, but it's not acceptable to look at that issue. Just remember Straight White Men are everything wrong with society and the sooner they are under the thumb of an aggressive HR department everything will be better. Don't respond, Big Brother is omnipresent.