Drop Zone to Centerline in 2 minutes.

[Threefingeredjack]

No question that he has mastery of the airplane. Very admirable. That's not what I criticize. What I criticize is flying the airplane without any margin for error; not following proper pattern procedures; skimming treetops unnecessarily; and so on. There are lots of pilots who can do what you see in this video (although not I), but it's not a question of "can", it's a question of "should".

Perhaps you should enlighten us on your experience base from which you offer these evaluations. I saw a pattern entry nearly at 45 degrees, he was maintaining speed on downwind to expedite his arrival, and his energy management was impeccable. Landing is all about energy management, low and fast has the same potential energy as high and slow, and had anything gone wrong he had the energy to pull up, stabilise, and still make the runway. He bled his energy on the turn to final with a steep turn. As to "should" he do this, he has a responsibility to his employer to cycle as many times as he can in a day. That is how revenue is generated.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but the fact remains he was under complete control operating a profile he knew implicitly on a field that is daily used in the same fashion. I remain unconvinced that the operation was unsafe.

 

[Tommy3]

So we should not allow others to do things that you can't do?

I'm gonna suggest that maybe you shouldn't do those things if you aren't comfortable with them, and let that be the end of it.

Why would you draw that conclusion? Who ever suggested that we should hold other pilots to our personal standards? Certainly not I. The OP asked if we felt that the pilot was being reckless. In my judgment, and with my experience, yes, I believe that he was being reckless. Don't ascribe things to me that are not warranted.

 

[sdflyer]

I think there is nothing wrong with descent. But what is about "good" energy management at very low altitude with overbanking? One good downdraft and deal is sealed with Darwin award IMHO

 

[Tommy3]

How is this a priority? It isn't my priority that it drives me nuts. I just can't stand ignorant pilots who will instantaneously call anything reckless that they don't understand or cannot do. Is aerobatic flying reckless? Is bush flying reckless?

It's unreasonable to call someone "ignorant" who disagrees with your view. It's obviously not trivially true that the flying is not reckless, and the OP wanted opinions about how we felt. That is how I feel. Aerobatic flying is not reckless, and neither is bush flying. The principal reason that they are not reckless is that risks are not taken unnecessarily. This pilot does not need to take the risks that he does to accomplish his mission (viz. dropping off skydivers and then landing normally).

He isn't doing anything out of the ordinary as far as skills. Mastery of the airplane? He knows the airplane just like everyone should. Proper pattern? About the only thing I can see is his excessive bank in the pattern.

The flaws in his pattern are, to my mind, as follows: (1) excessive bank; (2) excessive airspeed (justified only given the altitude); (3) way low altitude (never justified); (4) non-standard pattern (he does not fly a base leg); (5) not only is there no final leg, he turns inside the numbers, not getting aligned for landing until well past (1k ft?) the end of the runway. That is what I think, among other things, is wrong with his pattern. I find it very hard to believe that "the only thing [you] can see" non-proper about that pattern is the excessive bank.

 

[sdflyer]

How is this a priority? It isn't my priority that it drives me nuts. I just can't stand ignorant pilots who will instantaneously call anything reckless that they don't understand or cannot do. Is aerobatic flying reckless? Is bush flying reckless?

One aerobatic pilot and veteran FAA inspector once told me that he can fly airplane inverted, but doesn't make a better pilot. Just saying..

 

[Tommy3]

Perhaps you should enlighten us on your experience base from which you offer these evaluations. I saw a pattern entry nearly at 45 degrees, he was maintaining speed on downwind to expedite his arrival, and his energy management was impeccable. Landing is all about energy management, low and fast has the same potential energy as high and slow, and had anything gone wrong he had the energy to pull up, stabilise, and still make the runway. He bled his energy on the turn to final with a steep turn. As to "should" he do this, he has a responsibility to his employer to cycle as many times as he can in a day. That is how revenue is generated.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but the fact remains he was under complete control operating a profile he knew implicitly on a field that is daily used in the same fashion. I remain unconvinced that the operation was unsafe.

Let me give one reason why being a bad-ass pilot does not make you a safe pilot. It could well be that that was an uncontrolled airport. I, and no doubt many of you, have flown out of uncontrolled airports where there are pilots who do not have a radio. I wish the FAA would change that, but that's the way things are. In that case, the NORDO pilot has a reasonable expectation that aircraft will fly in accordance with published pattern procedures and regulations. These include, but are not limited to, flying a base leg (this guy didn't); flying a final leg (nope); not crossing over the side of the runway before getting lined up 1k ft (or whatever) past the threshold. So owing to NORDO pilots (or pilots with radios that aren't working/transmissions not received), standard patterns are important. If I were turning from base to final, radio or not, and this guy divebombs in like that in front of me, we are going to have words.

 

[Inverted]

One aerobatic pilot and veteran FAA inspector once told me that he can fly airplane inverted, but doesn't make a better pilot. Just saying..

Knowing how to fly inverted makes you a better pilot, but act of flying inverted does not make you a better pilot.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Nomex is that you?
Don't ever fly into an airport that has a dropzone, glider operations, ag operations, helicopter operations or firefighting aircraft operations, your head would explode.

 

[Inverted]

It's unreasonable to call someone "ignorant" who disagrees with your view. It's obviously not trivially true that the flying is not reckless, and the OP wanted opinions about how we felt. That is how I feel. Aerobatic flying is not reckless, and neither is bush flying. The principal reason that they are not reckless is that risks are not taken unnecessarily. This pilot does not need to take the risks that he does to accomplish his mission (viz. dropping off skydivers and then landing normally).

You are ignorant to how drop operations are conducted. Please don't watch any fire bombing videos. There are no excessive risks taken in that video.

The flaws in his pattern are, to my mind, as follows: (1) excessive bank; (2) excessive airspeed (justified only given the altitude); (3) way low altitude (never justified); (4) non-standard pattern (he does not fly a base leg); (5) not only is there no final leg, he turns inside the numbers, not getting aligned for landing until well past (1k ft?) the end of the runway. That is what I think, among other things, is wrong with his pattern. I find it very hard to believe that "the only thing [you] can see" non-proper about that pattern is the excessive bank.

Excessive airspeed?! Where? I dont fly base legs in the Lear, please don't tell the FAA on me. Way too low altitude? These are relative assumptions by you. The "excessive airspeed" as you call it would serve as a buffer if he lost both engines that low, which is very unlikely. He is not breaking a far there. He is high and fast enough to make a safe landing should his engines fail, I am certain as I have a bunch of time in the airplane he is flying. You clearly have no tailwheel experience, or operating an airplane to the limits of is design for that matter. Airplanes and pilots for that matter, can do a lot more than just fly rectangles around an airport, I assure you. He made a short, close in approach. You must have never been into an airport that doesn't allow you due to terrain or other circumstances, to fly a standard pattern.

 

[Tommy3]

You are ignorant to how drop operations are conducted. Please don't watch any fire bombing videos. There are no excessive risks taken in that video.

You're right, I am ignorant as to how drop operations are conducted. But I've done a hell of a lot of landings. And it's the landing that I criticize.

Excessive airspeed?! Where? I dont fly base legs in the Lear, please don't tell the FAA on me. Way too low altitude? These are relative assumptions by you. The "excessive airspeed" as you call it would serve as a buffer if he lost both engines that low, which is very unlikely. He is not breaking a far there. He is high and fast enough to make a safe landing should his engines fail, I am certain as I have a bunch of time in the airplane he is flying. You clearly have no tailwheel experience, or operating an airplane to the limits of is design for that matter. Airplanes and pilots for that matter, can do a lot more than just fly rectangles around an airport, I assure you. He made a short, close in approach. You must have never been into an airport that doesn't allow you due to terrain or other circumstances, to fly a standard pattern.

First, you are factually incorrect about a few things. I do have tailwheel experience. I do have experience "operating an airplane to the limits of is [sic] design", if by that you mean aerobatics (I'm not sure what you mean). I'm not sure what the relevance of that is, but if it is relevant, there you go.

Third, being a safe pilot isn't about "can", it's about "should". Sure, the best pilots can operate their airplanes in that manner. But the best pilots also exercise sound judgment in when to do it. None of the reasons you cite (e.g. terrain) exist in that video. There is nothing, apparently, that necessitates a crazy approach and landing like that. As one poster noted, all you need is a downdraft--always unpredictable as you know--and then it's game over. When you're skimming treetops like that there's just no room for error. As safe pilots we have to leave big margins for error whenever possible, to protect both against the things we can anticipate (e.g. downdrafts) and the things we cannot. What if he suffers an elevator failure down there? Or an engine out?

I can fly inverted too, and if you forced me to could probably do aileron rolls all day long at 500agl. But it would be monumentally stupid for me to do so. Now, if we found out that the pilot had a sick passenger and needed to get down asap then everything changes. But without a ground for taking those risks, I'd say we're looking at a pilot with good skills and bad judgment.

 

[Skylane81E]

Where would he have broken a FAA FAR?

The roll over looks to be about it as I doubt that the plane is legal for acro, and both occupants in chutes. Now, looking at the roll, just keep an eye on the bird on the compass...


Thing of beauty that roll!

Now the pattern work was a little "extreme" but honestly I've done quite similar when practicing engine failures and emergency descents.

I'd ride with this guy!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

not following proper pattern procedures

What are "proper pattern procedures?" He certainly hasn't violated any pattern-related FARs, not that they apply in this case.

Aerobatic flying is not reckless, and neither is bush flying. The principal reason that they are not reckless is that risks are not taken unnecessarily. This pilot does not need to take the risks that he does to accomplish his mission (viz. dropping off skydivers and then landing normally).

His mission is to fly as many skydivers as he can within the limits of his aircraft and skill, and that is EXACTLY what he is doing.

The flaws in his pattern are, to my mind, as follows: (1) excessive bank;

How much is too much? Doesn't look "excessive" to me.

(2) excessive airspeed (justified only given the altitude);

It's the other way around - The airspeed justifies the altitude. Airspeed + altitude = energy. He's attempting to get rid of energy, and the fastest way he can do that (again, fast is the mission here) is to keep his speed up as far down as possible, maximizing parasite drag, followed by bleeding the rest of the energy (airspeed) away with a fairly steep bank to maximize induced drag.

(3) way low altitude (never justified);

Why not? Again, he's got the energy he needs at all points to remain safe. He's not flying low over any people, he's not endangering any persons or property...

(4) non-standard pattern (he does not fly a base leg);

So what? It's about as close to a standard pattern as you can get. There are lots of times I don't fly a base leg, especially when there's a crosswind from the pattern side of the runway (tailwind on base). Check for traffic on final before the wing blocks your view and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a curved path from downwind all the way through to final.

(5) not only is there no final leg, he turns inside the numbers, not getting aligned for landing until well past (1k ft?) the end of the runway.

I don't see any runway markings at all, so chances are the lighter pavement is a displaced threshold. Besides, nothing wrong with landing long provided you've got the runway available for it.

It could well be that that was an uncontrolled airport. I, and no doubt many of you, have flown out of uncontrolled airports where there are pilots who do not have a radio. I wish the FAA would change that, but that's the way things are. In that case, the NORDO pilot has a reasonable expectation that aircraft will fly in accordance with published pattern procedures and regulations.

This guy sits in this same pattern ALL DAY LONG and he probably has the best viewpoint of all for seeing other traffic come in - When he comes bombing down from above, there will be lots of relative motion between inbound airplanes and objects on the ground since his groundspeed is near zero, making any other traffic easy to spot.

These include, but are not limited to, flying a base leg (this guy didn't);

How does that affect anyone else in any way?

flying a final leg (nope);

May I point out that some of the approaches into Airventure have no base (9/27) or final (18) by design, and that the design comes from the FAA...

not crossing over the side of the runway before getting lined up 1k ft (or whatever) past the threshold.

Like I said earlier, I expect that it's a displaced threshold - Note that the portion of the runway he used for landing was nice black asphalt and that what I believe is a displaced threshold and all the taxiways were older, lighter asphalt. And again, there's nothing wrong with landing long.

 

[ateamer]

Where would he have broken a FAA FAR?

!

Even if Tommy was n the horn to the FAA right now, they probably couldn't care less. The video is from Brazil. And I thought he flew masterfully and safely. I wonder what Tommy would think of guys flying 60 year old planes at treetop level in moderate to severe turbulence, low visibility and a shifting CG from the payload rapidly disappearing?

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Even if Tommy was n the horn to the FAA right now, they probably couldn't care less. The video is from Brazil. And I thought he flew masterfully and safely. I wonder what Tommy would think of guys flying 60 year old planes at treetop level in moderate to severe turbulence, low visibility and a shifting CG from the payload rapidly disappearing?

Yes. And I am guilty of low altitude night time overwater helo ops in crappy weather. But I never got any complaints from my "customers".

 

[redtail]

How is this a priority? It isn't my priority that it drives me nuts. I just can't stand ignorant pilots who will instantaneously call anything reckless that they don't understand or cannot do. Is aerobatic flying reckless? Is bush flying reckless?

Excellent point!

In the eyes of many non-aviators, every time we take to the air we're being "reckless".

By the way, that reminds me... I need to book my second aerobatic lesson so I can get some more "edge of the envelope" skills. Hopefully, I can take the G's a little better next flight.

I love that video, and the music really rocked.

On my job, I work with 13.2KV feeders......There's little margin for error, yet I wouldn't consider myself "reckless".
Haven't killed anyone yet, in 27 years.

 

[wickedsprint]

"Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?"

George Carlin

 

[DaytonaLynn]

Beign from Daytona Beach, many times my travels would take me past Deland a Mecca of jumpers from all over the world.
Sometimes it was as interesting to watch the plane as it was the jumpers.
One of my cross county traing flights we went to land there, heard on he ctaf, jumpers ready to depart. My instructor says let's go to another airport, it gets crazy with jumpers and planes. So I diverted to Sanford.
I iked the multicolored hair/hat of the one jumper.
Nice video.
I am not ready to try, but admire those that can do it and make it look effortless.

 

[Alexb2000]

This video has definitely gone viral. The latest liveleak version set to music is just someone ripping it and republishing to get a bunch of views.

The aircraft is a Dornier 28 and the video does not take place in Brazil, rather Einsenach, Germany.

Here is a link that shows the same operation from outside the aircraft.

http://www.military.com/video/milit...ornier-28-landing-outside-view/2041406487001/

Doesn't look nearly as "reckless" from outside the aircraft.

 

[Skylane81E]

Even if Tommy was n the horn to the FAA right now, they probably couldn't care less. The video is from Brazil. And I thought he flew masterfully and safely. I wonder what Tommy would think of guys flying 60 year old planes at treetop level in moderate to severe turbulence, low visibility and a shifting CG from the payload rapidly disappearing?

That was my point

 

[Inverted]

Where would he have broken a FAA FAR?

The roll over looks to be about it as I doubt that the plane is legal for acro, and both occupants in chutes. Now, looking at the roll, just keep an eye on the bird on the compass...


Thing of beauty that roll!

Now the pattern work was a little "extreme" but honestly I've done quite similar when practicing engine failures and emergency descents.

I'd ride with this guy!

He doesn't really do a roll, but more of a split S. The FAA cannot enforce action against a pilot for doing aerobatic maneuvers in a non-aerobatic aircraft. That is a design limitation, not a regulation. I have done aerobatic maneuvers in non-approved aircraft multiple times, while being completely safe and legal. Only the passenger needs a chute for aerobatic maneuvers. And we are talking about U.S. regs, this video is not from the U.S.

 

[Tommy3]

Being a good pilot is not just about skills. That guy obviously has some skills. Being a good pilots is also about judgment.

Aviation is an inherently risky activity. Even under the best circumstances (CAVU, 15,000-hour pilot, etc.) fatal accidents can and do occur, some of which are because of pilot error, but some of which are not. Now, as long as you're aware of the risks and are making a conscious decision to take them, as we all have, then so far there's no problem.

But good pilots continue to mitigate risk whenever possible so that when the unanticipated happens we have time and space to deal with it. When that guy's skimming the trees, what if the elevator fails down? He's probably going to die. What if there's a bee flying around the cockpit and decides to take that moment to sting him in the face? Who knows? There are all sorts of highly unlikely events, most of which we haven't even thought of. Each is unlikely to happen. But in the aggregate the chance that one of them is going to happen is much more serious. So we have to build margins of error into our flying to be able to deal with problems. If the elevator fails at 1,000agl--pattern altitude--that's probably enough time to get on the trim, nose up, get stabilized, and deal with the problem. If it fails nose down at 100agl then you're probably ****ed.

So it's not about skill but judgment. There are lots of reasonable times to fly like that. Many of my military pilots, for example, flew more "recklessly" than that (as you are defining it, incorrectly) but not more recklessly, because there were bigger risks (e.g. ground fire) by flying in a more conventional manner. There were operational grounds to fly as the pilot in the video does. Like I said, if we find out that the fellow in the video had a sick passenger in the back, then what seems "reckless" becomes immediately prudent and laudable. It's not just about skill. You have to think deeper.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Being a good pilot is not just about skills. That guy obviously has some skills. Being a good pilots is also about judgment.

You are correct on that point. And the basis of good judgement is being able to accurately assess all the pertinent factors in any given situation. A huge factor in good judgement is experience. To someone without the experience and on scene knowledge of the pilot involved to call foul on the performance strikes me as exhibiting a poor understanding of how judgement operates in the real world looking through a cockpit window as opposed to looking at a computer screen.
In your last response you made the comment "some of my military pilots". Are you a military pilot?

 

[sdflyer]

Knowing how to fly inverted makes you a better pilot, but act of flying inverted does not make you a better pilot.

I sense little wibes of macho attitude



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[werewolf]

Location : Brazil : no
This video took place at : N 50° 31' 49" E 018° 05' 00".
Please have a look at Google Earth.

 

[Tommy3]

You are correct on that point. And the basis of good judgement is being able to accurately assess all the pertinent factors in any given situation. A huge factor in good judgement is experience. To someone without the experience and on scene knowledge of the pilot involved to call foul on the performance strikes me as exhibiting a poor understanding of how judgement operates in the real world looking through a cockpit window as opposed to looking at a computer screen.

I agree. Again, if there are extenuating circumstances to that video--e.g. he was transporting a sick passenger--please say so.

In your last response you made the comment "some of my military pilots". Are you a military pilot?

No, I'm not, I'm a private pilot. I have frequently put my life in the hands of military pilots--whether it's going out to an operation, a "simple" COD landing, or whatever. Truly great pilots (like in any field I think) aren't flashy, don't feel a need to show off, tell the world what great badasses they are, etc. They're quiet professionals who get the job done. Taking unnecessary risks imperils mission accomplishment. I know this philosophy is totally counter to the Internet ethos of share everything, claim to know everything, brag about everything. But I still think it's the right one.

 

[Inverted]

I sense little wibes of macho attitude



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Not at all.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Taking unnecessary risks imperils mission accomplishment. I know this philosophy is totally counter to the Internet ethos of share everything, claim to know everything, brag about everything. But I still think it's the right one.

And therein lies the crux of this whole thread: personal opinion about what constitutes "unnecessary risk" I am not the world's greatest pilot, but I have been lucky enough to bag a respectable number of hours on the government dime doing what others might consider "risky".
To the average Joe on the street strapping on a 172 and doodling 50 miles in flat calm CAVU weather for a weekend burger is an "unnecessary risk". I don't think you would agree with that assessment. Everyone in this thread has differing levels of experience and acceptable levels of performance and risk, no one can convince anyone else that their point of view is wrong because from each individual's experience level they are correct.......and for their level of experience they are correct.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Currently I fly a C208B for a DZ, that guy just did a more or less normal skydive profile.

Best climb up to alt, trq to 0, flaps, green light, jumpers are away,

Flaps up, rpm to 100% trq 0%, pitch for the earth just shy of VNE, this give us about a 5000fpm decent and IAS of around 170kts. Most of the time I will match my guys in free fall for a little bit

Typically I'll enter on a base leg (remember you can enter the pattern at any point, just as long as your following the traffic pattern, ie R or L).

Decelerating turn to 1mi final, full forward prop (and that slows you right down), flaps 10, slow below 145 flaps 20, feel a little sink full flaps and touch down. 9 times out of 10 I dont touch the power until I'm on the ground and even then I rarley need reverse to get off on the first taxi way (2000'), it's just energy management.

Also we wear a rig when we fly, FAR reg on that.

Some hobby pilots freak out watching these videos, honestly the "power on stabilized approach" aint the answer for every mission :wink2:

 

[turbofan]

If the airplane owner allows him to fly like that (it may be his) and his passengers know the risks then I don't see a problem with it.

I don't think it is a matter of skill mitigating the riskiness of it or an "operational necessity" where the costs justify the risk, but a matter of if everyone knows the risks and are willing to accept them.

Be adults and let people make their own life decisions.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

....I don't think it is a matter of skill mitigating the riskiness of it or an "operational necessity" where the costs justify the risk, but a matter of if everyone knows the risks and are willing to accept them.......

I really dont see where he was taking any real risks???

The guy had plenty of altitude, when he got low he had buckets of energy (as can be seen from his landing)

The average low time hobby pilot doing a power on stabilized BS approach and depending on that engine the whole way, IMO, takes FAR more risk then a pro DZ pilot flying a jump profile.

 

[turbofan]

I really dont see where he was taking any real risks???

The guy had plenty of altitude, when he got low he had buckets of energy (as can be seen from his landing)

The average low time hobby pilot doing a power on stabilized BS approach and depending on that engine the whole way, IMO, takes FAR more risk then a pro DZ pilot flying a jump profile.

There's nothing wrong with the energy management, it's the zero margin of error that he is giving himself for when he takes a bird in the face.

Like I said before: if it's just your life and you wrote the check for the plane, then do whatever you want to, bro. If other people are there that don't understand the risk or it's someone else's machine, then don't.

A low time hobby pilot doing a long power on approach may be more dangerous than a pro DZ pilot, a Hornet behind the boat, or Bob Hoover with no engines, but he is flying the profile that is best for him.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

All the 50hr a year guys dragging their 172s and SR22s in on final on sundays chocked full of grandkids, friends and whatnot are WAY more at risk.

Minus a freak thing like a unavoidable bird strike or control failure the DZ pilot has very little risk, keep in mind most DZ pilots have power available yet never have to touch the throttles, he's got boat loads of margin with altitude or downlow with speed, unlike the guy in a cirrus showing his friends his house, flying over a dense city at 2k.

Also as for the owner, if that pilot lolygagged around doing a 500-1500fpm decent, full weekend warrior traffic pattern and stabilized power approach, that owner would fire his azz with the swiftness.

 

[turbofan]

All the 50hr a year guys dragging their 172s and SR22s in on final on sundays chocked full of grandkids, friends and whatnot are WAY more at risk.

Minus a freak thing like a unavoidable bird strike or control failure the DZ pilot has very little risk, keep in mind most DZ pilots have power available yet never have to touch the throttles, he's got boat loads of margin with altitude or downlow with speed, unlike the guy in a cirrus showing his friends his house, flying over a dense city at 2k.

Also as for the owner, if that pilot lolygagged around doing a 500-1500fpm decent, full weekend warrior traffic pattern and stabilized power approach, that owner would fire his azz with the swiftness.

If giving yourself zero options for when you do misjudge your altitude or get temporarily distracted by something and have a tip strike, hit a bird, control problems, or any other number of events that may normally be uneventful but now mean almost certain death at low altitude is your thing then you don't have the professionalism to be responsible for anyone else's life but your own.

These things happen, they aren't unknown unknowns and you won't be able to say that you never saw it coming.

Personally, I'd prefer that my time alive is determined by me using my judgement to keep me out of situations needing my skill, not the result of a one-in-x event that not even I could aviate my way out of.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

If giving yourself zero options for when you do misjudge your altitude or get temporarily distracted by something and have a tip strike, hit a bird, control problems, or any other number of events that may normally be uneventful but now mean almost certain death at low altitude is your thing then you don't have the professionalism to be responsible for anyone else's life but your own.

These things happen, they aren't unknown unknowns and you won't be able to say that you never saw it coming.

Personally, I'd prefer that my time alive is determined by me using my judgement to keep me out of situations needing my skill, not the result of a one-in-x event that not even I could aviate my way out of.

Dont know what you fly, or what decade you flew in, but Ive got a load of friends in AG that seem to be able to pay attention to what they are doing (crazy concept) and haven't wrapped anything up, and their energy to altitude is far more sketch then a empty king air in decent for DZ ops.

As for my professionalism, I fly for a living (AG to DZ, to floats to CFIing), on average 100hrs or so a month, this is what I do.

...certain death at low altitude

well, I've dealt with two complete engine failures in my career, one at low altitude (hundreds) on climb-out, I have yet to so much as scratch the paint on a plane.

not the result of a one-in-x event that not even I could aviate my way out of.

Well as someone who can handle working low level in a aircraft and who even has a proven track record of dealing with emergencies at that level, I am available to help tutor you to improve your skills so even you could aviate at low altitudes, currently I'm on the west coast and charge $50hr, cash.

 

[sdflyer]

well, I've dealt with two complete engine failures in my career, one at low altitude (hundreds) on climb-out, I have yet to so much as scratch the paint on a plane.
.

Sound like you are invincible ?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[ClimbnSink]

Pansies ain't just a flower. And you ain't beautiful just because you know how(sort of) to fly.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Pansies ain't just a flower. And you ain't beautiful just because you know how(sort of) to fly.

Agree 100%, I attribute that more to symmetrical features, exercise and my strong jaw line... but that's a diffrent topic

Sound like you are invincible ?

Not really lol, just maintaining proficiency, some skill and the ability to use logic / common sense and think for yourself

 

[Inverted]

Sound like you are invincible ?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

You may need to step outside the world of being a CFI to understand what other people are saying. I assure you, the military is not the only place where precision, low level, high performance flying is required. Pilots are very capable of this. As I have said before, it is hard for the weekend warrior, or the common CFI to understand these things. Talking about it doesn't mean somebody thinks they are invincible, but rather a profesional pilot, who is trained, and good at what they do.

 

[Inverted]

Pansies ain't just a flower. And you ain't beautiful just because you know how(sort of) to fly.

Agreed.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

You may need to step outside the world of being a CFI to understand what other people are saying. I assure you, the military is not the only place where precision, low level, high performance flying is required. Pilots are very capable of this. As I have said before, it is hard for the weekend warrior, or the common CFI to understand these things. Talking about it doesn't mean somebody thinks they are invincible, but rather a profesional pilot, who is trained, and good at what they do.

At this point I think it is obvious we are trying to explain a rainbow to a blind man. There are some who will never go to the edges of the performance capabilities of their machine, and have no base of experience to judge whether doing so is safe, much less possible. But of course this does not prevent them from passing judgement on a topic they are unprepared to experience.