Leaderboard

LJDRVR, First, I'm not a fan of bringing Bud Holland's name into the same conversation as professional airshow performers. While Bud was an outstanding B-52, he was unable to get the training he needed to take his B-52 flying "to the next level". Why? Because the AF wouldn't allow that. So, he took it upon himself, violated flight discipline, and the rest is history. It was not an "airshow gone bad". It was a pilot who didn't know the limits, was overconfident, and violated the limits imposed on him. Same with the C-17 crash. Professional airshow performers are just that: professional performers. And they have limits imposed on them. The hard-core aerobatic types almost always start out through the competitive aerobatic backgrounds. Very demanding and precise, and flown at much higher altitudes. But they build their chops there (usually). When they move to the "airshow industry", they have to work with someone called an Aerobatic Competency Evaluator (ACE), who is a highly respected and experienced performer that has to validate their performance. New performers start with an 800' deck. I cannot remember how many shows they must perform before they are eligible to move to the next level, which is 500'. Then a bunch more shows, get evaluated and go to 250'... then a bunch more and get certified to the surface. It's not a "I'll go thrash the airplane around the sky" type of setup. The performers enjoy it, and they don't want to see anyone hurt either. They do a great job of self-regulating their industry. The International Council of Air Shows (ICAS) has many resources and seminars that drive the safety point home. Accidents do nothing to help the industry out, and no one wants to see them happen. Even when no one gets hurt, it opens the door for criticism. Neil Armstrong was a professional. What he did (test flying, space program) was far, far more dangerous than what is done in the airshow industry. Irrespective of what "inspired" him. Like the airshow professionals, he 'lived' to do what he did. As was mentioned above,... and I'm sure everyone knows,... no one is forcing airshow performers to do stupid stuff. In the rare event where it does happen intentionally, it's almost always the performer taking what they think is a minimal increase in risk to make a better performance. And I've told performers that. More than once I've said "why bother getting so low? No one behind the first two rows of spectators can see you." I just finished announcing a 2-day show today, and we had a performer who had done this same show 47 times,... and we had a performer in an Extra who was doing his very first airshow ever. And a few in between. Believe me, all of the performers were watching the new guy, and taking notes. They take it serious, and they want to do it well. And they certainly debriefed him after each performance. Bottom line: I believe your representation of the problem being pilots in marginally safe JN-4's, and that the crowd is made up of folks that want to see that is completely wrong. In fact, the number one attraction at any airshow (as proven by ICAS surveys that are given to spectators), are the military jet teams. And, as you know, they have a full-blown syllabus that gets them up to speed through a step-down program. So... I guess I disagree with you. Side note: as was pointed out on another thread, we've proved we can drive cars real fast now, and there's no need to spend your entire life training to go a little faster on a bicycle, while under the influence of steroids. Apparently, human nature enjoys the challenge.

The fact that you are even asking this question points to the further pussification of America. Aviation is inherently dangerous. We take risks. Shit happens. We learn from it and move on, but there is no reason to pack it all up and quit just because "one life is too many." Airshows still inspire future generations of aviators, and if it creates a spark in just one kid who will become the next Neil Armstrong and one day set foot on Mars or become the first Ace in World War IV, it's fucking worth it. Death is mandatory. Being a pussy is not.

FIFY

This whole thread is ridiculous...the fact that we have eroded into a culture where it is ok for some goober to call out a superior from across a f^cking chow hall and not be backhanded for it is a sad, sad fact. Those of you who are of the line of thinking that this ok because it is "the rules" and if you can't follow simple rules, how can you be trusted to follow rules in the air...you are just part of the problem. The current leadership has screwed the pooch by enabling this logic and empowering the "chief syndrome"...it's like a virus that ultimately undercuts our ability to do our job.

We must not have been to the same Doha. That place is an absolute shithole.

There certainly is a legitimate area of discussion with respect to flight discipline and motivations of a portion of the owners/operators of high performance civilian aircraft. There have been a number of fatal accidents over the last 5-10 years in warbirds and like aircraft that are directly attributable to pilot error, and were closely related to some risky behavior like low level aerobatics or other "non-point-A-to-point-B" flying. I've related this story before, but at EAA's warbird operator forum at Oshkosh in 2010, the main topic was this safety trend. One of the CAF's flight safety guys stood up and noted that every single accident in the previous year had been pilot error, and that most of those accidents involved some questionable judgment. He compelled everyone in attendance to "take a long, hard look in the mirror" and figure out why that was. The implication being, of course, that the current batch of owners and pilots were engaging in some risky behavior and poor judgment. The additional factors being the widely differing training and experience levels of the operators, as well as some personality traits which fostered a culture where people were hesitant to comment honestly on other guys' behaviors. The discussion amongst the pilots showed that they knew it was an issue, although they differed widely on how to fix it. The follow-up is that at this year's operator forum last month, the main presentation was about airmanship, judgment, flight discipline, and it got right to the point. I didn't attend the jet group's forum, but I understand that it, too, was very pointed in its discussion, having had a pretty poor year (mostly because of the acts of a couple of bad actors that have given everyone a bad name....reference the Santa Monica pier flyby a few years ago). Obviously not ALL of the owners and operators are a bunch of hot-dogs. In fact, I'd say the majority of them pretty firmly are not. But the aforementioned differing levels of training, experience, and proficiency are definitely a HUGE problem, and the personality issue is a cultural one which has evolved over years of the changing face of membership in the warbird club, and will take many years to evolve (back) into something that allows for the brutally honest criticism to be given and accepted in the hopes of safety and improvement. That being said, Huggy shacked it with his description of the airshow performer world. It is a tight-knit group that loves what they do, and do it because they want to. They appear to do a good job of regulating themselves, as they know the FAA is always there and ready to start regulating things for them if they won't take care of things internally. Certainly there are differing levels of experience, skill, and commitment to disciplined and safe flying, but it seems to me as an outsider that the overall culture of the ICAS bunch is very safety oriented, as they know that is keystone to the airshow businesses future survival. LJDRVR's question of, "is it worth it", is ultimately irrelevant. These airshows are largely put on and participated in by people who want to do it. A spectator's (or even a single potential participant's) personal risk/reward analysis really doesn't matter, since there are tons and tons of people for whom spending the time, effort, and money to train for, and participate in, the airshow circuit is worth it. Just as there are tons of people who are performing in IAC competitions all the time out of the public spotlight, just because they can. Same reason people are going to FAST clinics and learning how to fly formation, just because they can.

I am getting ready to PCS to Whiting at the end of September, I haven't been able to find out much info about it. Since there aren't many AF Students per class how does it work when it's time to track select?

Downloaded Chester Wong's (pen name) first two books for free to my Kindle courtesy of Amazon.com for my trip to Yokota last week... He's a West Point grad Special Forces officer-turned-writer; but it is one of the most entertaining, honest and humble books you will ever read by an Army snake-eater! It's not the superman novel you'd expect (check the byline), this guy actually spends more talking about his failures and shortcomings than anything else . He has a great sense of humor and isn't afraid to tell the truth about his life as a SF officer, warts and all. Highly recommended, I've finished the first and have started on the second, and can't wait for the third edition to come out! More about Wong and his books on his website. Cheers! M2

Don't confuse the base with the city. Doha isn't terrible, while Clovis is. There is a TON of stuff to do in Doha and a lot of fun to be had there. The reason that undisclosed location sucks so bad is 100% the fault of the Americans and their asine policies. All indications point to that base not going anywhere... ever. I have heard MANY different senior leaders express the desire to make it "The Ramstein of the middle east". With that said, I think we need as many spouses there as possible, because as this thread highlights, the "normalcy" of having spouses there runs counter to the idiocy of that base, and may actually go a long way to get the place changed for the better.

Exactly. It is ridiculous. There are a shitload of officers that need to sack up. You either tolerate or you don't. Insubordination is far more detrimental to the mission than the color of your socks.

the Maj in question is a good friend of mine - he's not a douche but he also doesn't take bullshit from people that's not warranted. a TSgt yelling across the chow hall at an FGO is bullshit. the Major's argument with the Lt Col was not about sunglasses but rather the unprofessional "correction" by the TSgt. the situation escalated unnecessarily after that to the point where eventually SF was summoned and IDs were confiscated. the "punishment" was horseshit as well - the situation had absolutely nothing to do with flying or evaluator duties. the OG at the time was known for those kind of decisions unfortunately. the biggest problem is people don't mind their own f*cking business. if i have my sunglasses on my head, it's none of that TSgts god-damned business unless he works directly for me or is otherwise in my chain of command. this "correction" atmosphere needs to change. that being said, staying within regs is an easy way to avoid this crap and focus on the important stuff.

CGOPA? IMHO, the CGO's should (PREPARE TO HAVE YOUR BLUE KOOL-AID SOAKED BRAINS EXPLODE) exercise judgement on saluting each other. If I'm a Lt going out to lunch with some Capt bros and meet them in the parking lot, I'm not going to salute them when they show up to my car. If I'm walking past them into the building and there are others around, I'll salute them. Just exercise some judgement and common sense. I think they're working that into PME in the next courseware update so it should be easier to grasp.

I never said it was some big conspiracy. I don't even think it's that common. I simply stated that I, me personally, know more officers than enlisted who will play the dodging game. Looking back I'm not even sure why I brought it up. I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the logic that a Lt shouldn't have to salute a Capt.