A sad accident:

Air Force instructor dies after ejection seat goes off while plane is on the ground

​

 

That time the Air Force went inverted over a Russian bomber

​

“At that time, we probably averaged two intercepts of “Bears” per week. They were the only aircraft we saw while I was there. Generally, the intercepts occurred on Fridays and Sundays, at the “Bears” flew from Murmansk to Cuba on training and, we guessed, “fun” missions. Generally, we did these barrel rolls at the request of the Soviet crewmembers. They gave us hand signals to let us know they wanted us to do it. They photographed us as well. The Cold War was winding down and the attitudes on both sides had improved,” Sihler explains.

 

That time the Air Force went inverted over a Russian bomber
View attachment 322589​

I beg to differ. I'd gladly be a passenger in an F-4 doing a barrel roll. My kids got a flight in a PT-17 biplane for my 50th birthday. During the last 5 minutes of the flight, the pilot did some aerobatic maneuvers. Being in the cockpit I couldn't tell what he was doing, only that at one second the ground was to my left and the next it was to my right or directly in front of me. I don't think he did a roll, barrel or otherwise but it was better than any rollercoaster I've ever been on. I'd do it again in a heartbeat and don't even tease me about the F-4.

 

I beg to differ.

Yeah ... the contents of this thread have evolved over time. And I think it's an improvement, actually. Perhaps I should adjust its title.

 

​

 

I'm pretty sure it's not only "theoretically possible", but has happened. I know there is one family in which a current B-52 pilot has a father and a grandfather that flew the bird, but I don't know if they have ever flown the same bird. There's a fairly good likelihood, though, since the total number of B-52 is not huge and pilots fly many different aircraft over their career. I also recall reading about a grandfather/grandson pair that did fly the same aircraft, but haven't been able to track that down.

Although the B-52 entered service in 1955, none of those aircraft are still flying. All operational birds are H models, which were introduced in 1961 through 1963. Of the 742 aircraft built (not counting the prototypes), right around 10% are still in service. But occasionally they recommission one that was previously retired and bring it up to date in order to replace a bird that would cost more to repair and keep on active duty.

Every time they come up with a new bomber to replace it, they discover that, for a variety of reasons, the new bomber can't do the job as well. Often times its because of the cost of modern military aircraft with all the bells and whistles. Another cost factor is that the new aircraft's development and tooling costs have to spread out amongst a much smaller number of planned airframes, while the B-52's costs were not only spread out amongst over 700 aircraft, but those costs have long since been paid, so the new aircraft production has to compete head-to-head with the B-52's ongoing maintenance costs (which are certainly climbing as the fleet continues to age) -- but with so many in storage out in the desert, there will be no shortage of parts for some time to come.

Oddly, even though the complaint for so long was that it needed to be replaced because it's not (and can't be made) stealthy, that has turned into one of its selling points -- when it goes on a mission, they want the other side to know it's there, with full knowledge that its ability to rain hell is well-deserved.

 

I'm sure the same thing can be said for the Soviet era bomber.

A very capable low level bomber at sea. They had tons of EM countermeasures to evade detection while flying just below the radar sea surface noise level. The damn thing are so noisy you could detect the acoustic signature from miles away under water.

 

 

 

A hard lesson for kids learned the hard way. Taking that Kia for a 'joy' ride is not cool. Kids, the consequences for your actions can be horrible.

A stolen vehicle pursuit ended abruptly when the Kia sedan cut off a semi truck on the NB 710 freeway south of Anaheim street causing the semi truck to t-bone the suspect vehicle and trap patients inside.
LBPD officers are observed pulling multiple patients out of the suspect vehicle, dragging them to safety. One female was still trapped inside the vehicle when flames were abrupting and LBPD rescued her quickly and extinguished the fire during the rescue.

Spoiler

 

A hard lesson for kids learned the hard way. Taking that Kia for a 'joy' ride is not cool. Kids, the consequences for your actions can be horrible.

A stolen vehicle pursuit ended abruptly when the Kia sedan cut off a semi truck on the NB 710 freeway south of Anaheim street causing the semi truck to t-bone the suspect vehicle and trap patients inside.
LBPD officers are observed pulling multiple patients out of the suspect vehicle, dragging them to safety. One female was still trapped inside the vehicle when flames were abrupting and LBPD rescued her quickly and extinguished the fire during the rescue.

Spoiler

Kudos to the Blue Ones for their heroic actions. I don't care if it was their duty and obligation, what they did was beyond commendable ... To serve and protect indeed ... The very least that those kids can learn now are the virtues of gratitude and humility.

 

 

This is why I never take my seatbelt off on a flight -- things like this can and do happen and they can and do happen with zero warning.

 

This is why I never take my seatbelt off on a flight -- things like this can and do happen and they can and do happen with zero warning.

I never take it off either. But I do adjust it very, very loose so that I don't even feel it's there.

 

This is why I never take my seatbelt off on a flight -- things like this can and do happen and they can and do happen with zero warning.

Brutal! They likely were the first ones into that nasty pocket of air over the tropics. I've been in planes from the old Clark AB to other bases that were bad but nothing like that. Usually there is a warning of possible turbulence ahead. In the old days the pilot(s) would say 'we have reports of' from other pilots or the controller giving time to prep before we hit it. So scary!

 

Brutal! They likely were the first ones into that nasty pocket of air over the tropics. I've been in planes from the old Clark AB to other bases that were bad but nothing like that. Usually there is a warning of possible turbulence ahead. In the old days the pilot(s) would say 'we have reports of' from other pilots or the controller giving time to prep before we hit it. So scary!

Just heard a report on the radio that the plane dropped 6000 ft in four minutes as a result of the turbulence it encountered.

I'm actually pretty doubtful that this is the case -- severe turbulence is generally a short-lived transient event as you cross the boundaries between airmasses moving in different directions at different speeds, or encounter vertical windshear in/around convective cells. If you have sustained turbulence lasting minutes, it generally leaves you at roughly the same altitude -- air just simply doesn't have a lot of vertical space to work with. So if they really did drop that much over that long a time, I'm willing to bet that it was a deliberate and controlled action on the part of the pilots. A descent rate of 1500 ft/min for an airliner isn't extreme at all, in fact, it's on the shallow end of normal descent rates even on normal descents into an airport terminal area. The usual descent rate is intended to achieve a 3° angle of descent, which would equate to an airspeed of 28,600 ft/min, which is only 282 kts. The plane was likely cruising at nearly twice that speed, so anything up to about 3000 ft/min rate of descent would have been simply normal.

Since severe turbulence tends to be somewhat localized in altitude, the flight crew probably initiated a gentle descent to try to get underneath it and stopped the descent when it appeared they had done so. The alternative, climbing to get above it, would also have been a potential option, but if they were at a typical cruising altitude, they may not have had enough available altitude left to get above it and their climb rate would have been increasingly impacted by the thinning air.

 

Just heard a report on the radio that the plane dropped 6000 ft in four minutes as a result of the turbulence it encountered.

I'm actually pretty doubtful that this is the case -- severe turbulence is generally a short-lived transient event as you cross the boundaries between airmasses moving in different directions at different speeds, or encounter vertical windshear in/around convective cells. If you have sustained turbulence lasting minutes, it generally leaves you at roughly the same altitude -- air just simply doesn't have a lot of vertical space to work with. So if they really did drop that much over that long a time, I'm willing to bet that it was a deliberate and controlled action on the part of the pilots. A descent rate of 1500 ft/min for an airliner isn't extreme at all, in fact, it's on the shallow end of normal descent rates even on normal descents into an airport terminal area. The usual descent rate is intended to achieve a 3° angle of descent, which would equate to an airspeed of 28,600 ft/min, which is only 282 kts. The plane was likely cruising at nearly twice that speed, so anything up to about 3000 ft/min rate of descent would have been simply normal.

Since severe turbulence tends to be somewhat localized in altitude, the flight crew probably initiated a gentle descent to try to get underneath it and stopped the descent when it appeared they had done so. The alternative, climbing to get above it, would also have been a potential option, but if they were at a typical cruising altitude, they may not have had enough available altitude left to get above it and their climb rate would have been increasingly impacted by the thinning air.

You're right as usual.

OMG!
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/1-dead-dozens-injured-in-sq321-turbulence/

The worse sustained turbulence (not even close to what happen to those poor people), lasting minutes I've ever had was coming in on a C5 to Clark from Diego Garcia into a tropical storm with lots of localized cells. Sitting backward in the tail of those things was horrifying to me and I would guess most of the non-crew passengers in turbulence. Even with ear plugs and muffs, your could hear the huge engines screaming, you could hear the control surface mechanicals straining and it felt like we were falling like a rock. We all had our heads on a swivel trying to look forward to see it the plane was cracking up. Finally landed and taxied to the base terminal for customs. They opened the door to a howling wind, and rain inches deep on the runway. The crew acted like it was just another day at the office.

Screaming Engines example.

 

I never heard this story.

If you're going to be a Marine, you've got to do what you've got to do.

 

I never heard this story.

That guy was the GOAT when it really mattered.

I've seen lots of amazing USMC pilots during my two WESTPAC tours on a helo carrier but nothing close to the amazing flying and guts that guy showed.
Bravo Zulu.