Pilot grounded for barrel roll at Fenway – Air Force News, news from Iraq – Air Force Times — Pretty funny, especially the bureaucratic response. What I like is the BS concept that the pilot being “grounded” is an “opportunity” not a punishment. Cripes, what a weasel.
Fans at Fenway Park on Tuesday were treated to a once-in-a-lifetime performance when an F-16 flyover took an unplanned twist.
Three Falcons from the Vermont Air National Guard’s 158th Fighter Wing flew in formation over the Boston stadium at the conclusion of the national anthem on opening day at the park. Then, a fourth F-16 came up from behind the formation, swooping underneath and then barrel-rolling over the top of the trio.
The crowd cheered, but the maneuver got the pilot grounded.
The roll is a normal move used to slow down a jet, but is only approved for altitudes over 5,000 feet, Goodrow said. The jets were flying at 1,100 feet for the flyover.
The grounding was handed out “not as a punishment, but as an opportunity to sit back and reflect and re-engage in proper procedures and the ways to do what he did,” Goodrow said.
Here’s a video of it. You’ll have to sit through the National Anthem because it happens at the end. (Or maybe you should stand up?)
My memory must be slipping. Seems to me I have seen low level barrel rolls at every airshow I have ever been to? Has to be one of the safest aerobatic maneuvers you can do, as in, totally safe. Also hard to believe a senior pilot would to this given years of experience with the chain of command.
Why the doublespeak about punishment/time to reflect? Add Goodrow to my list of people to never trust on anything.
He should have dropped some bombs.
There are things that shouldn’t be done close to the ground. Like
#4–WmDE==any idea at all what that commentary was about? Pure gibberish from everything I could see.
Now, high speed terrain pass at 30 feet is somewhat unusual==unless specifically training for a special mission?
As I remember the story the pilot of the B-52 was considered one of the best B-52 pilots in the Air Force. His lack of judgment regarding low level flight began to worry the people flying with him. The Air Force was remiss in not giving him the “opportunity to sit back and reflect.”
The term is not double-speak. It is treatment for the god complex.
#6–WmDE==that helps a bit but the commentary that goes with the clip you posted only hints at what you say. We did low level mission (not THAT low) and folks got reprimanded for flying too low . Oh–this pilot must have been “of rank?” That figures.
Well, I still don’t know how the copilot crashing an airplane is supposed to correct anything, but I may have misunderstood the one time hearing of the clip.
Desk jockies should not be allowed near airplanes, and if so allowed, should be required to be as competent as regular crew.
While I think it’s cool and would be fun to watch. The Air Force/Military can’t tolerate nor condone not following orders. They aren’t optional, no matter how cool the stunt may be.
Dr Strangelove is on the tube right now==Slim Pickins selecting his target of opportunity. One of the top 10 films of all time.
“No Fighting in the War Room!”
As I recall the saying it was ‘There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.’
That was pretty dumb!
Regarding th B-52 crash:
http://tinyurl.com/2n58jh
uhm doenst the FAA have a regulation about flying withing 1000 feet (might be a bit more) of an stadium that is occupied? there was a big stick about this in cleveland regarding the stadium, as there was a browns game scheduled at the same time as the cleveland air show. the stadium and burk lakefront airport are close together to cause a problem…
Admfubar,
It all has to do with pre-coordination. The stadium requested the flyover, so no worries.
>>Seems to me I have seen low level barrel
>>rolls at every airshow I have ever been to?
Perhaps you’re confusing barrel rolls with aileron rolls, Mister Bobbolina. Reliable sources say that real barrel rolls are quite difficult, which I imagine means they’re easy to fuck up, and therefore dangerous.
Instead of just breaking off a screwed up approach, a hot dog fighter joc decided to break a few regulations. Was anyone really in danger, prolly not. But he will still get his PP slapped.
The unfortunate side affect of this will be that it will be harder to get approval for cool flybyes in the future.
Don
How different the comments would have been if something would have went wrong and the pilot had crashed. I imagine those saying that there is too much regulation, would be the same people reprimanding the Air Force for not grounding and idiot like that.
The fact of the matter is that when traveling at the speeds that these planes travel, any little mistake can take them down. The regulations are there to keep people safe, and he should be grounded for this stunt.
Also being ‘indefinitely’ grounded is an opportunity, in a case like this I am sure that a Court Marshall is normal, and probably busted down a few ranks.
#15–Mustard, I don’t think so. Barrel rolls are very controlled and safe because they are an aileron roll performed at a constant one g. So, in fact, they are “more stable” than an aileron roll that has many transverse g’s. Some early engine designs could not do an aileron roll because the fuel flow got disrupted. Those engine could do barrel rolls. That hasn’t been an issue for 80 years—but “still.”
#17–CD==criticism wrapped in vagaries, ambiguities, and nonspecifics?? Very poor form.
Please state a specific “for instance” of what could go wrong that would be caused by or exacerbated by the barrel roll? Please limit yourself to real world examples? In advance, thanks.
Tempest in a teapot. bobbo is right, a barrel roll (although technically not an aileron roll) is a safe maneuver, pulls +1 to +1.6 Gs and can be performed in just about any aircraft. There is never a danger of lost fuel flow since there are no negative Gs.
I’ll bet that pilot could do it on instruments in zero visibility.
With a clear canopy and line of sight to the other craft in formation, very safe.
I’ve seen Bob Hoover roll a King Air many times (and I’m not ever saying anything about some crazy guy that’s barrel rolled a C-310 or a Queen Air, albeit at more than 1,100 ft.)
Mr Ray;
While I would never attempt to go mano-a-mano with you on aviation matters, I was basing my comment in part (only in part, mind you) on the statement in Wiki-whatever that said:
“In aviation, the maneuver includes a constant variation of attitude in all three axes, and at the midpoint (top) of the roll, the aircraft is flying inverted, with the nose pointing at a 90-degree angle (“sideways”) to the general path of flight. The term “barrel roll” is frequently used, incorrectly, to refer to any roll by an airplane (see aileron roll), or to a helical roll in which the nose remains pointed generally along the flight path. In fact, the barrel roll is a specific and difficult maneuver; a combination of a roll and a loop.”
That sounds more difficult to me than just doing a 360-degree rotation around the longitudinal axis
#20–Mustard==did you read the right paragraph? sounds more like your are describing a cloverleaf rather than a barrel roll. There is very little variation in the longetudinal axis in a barrel roll and one is never 90 degrees to the general path of fligh ((which sounds impossible to me and should be “original” path of flight)). And yes, clover leafs and loops are much more difficult and dangerous than rolls.
Why do we both like Bubba so much? Could it be we have both escaped the Double Dip Dork Award??
I believe, Mister Bobbolina, it’s because Mister Ray is a voice of reason in the wilderness of dvorak dot com slash blog.
And yes, I’m sure I’m reading the right entry. Check it out for yourself on Wiki-whatever, under the entry “Barrel Roll”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_roll
In particular: “A more common modern visualization is to imagine an airplane trying to fly in a horizontal corkscrew around the line of the direction of travel.”
Flying in a “horizontal corkscrew” would put the plane well off the original longitudinal course (my personal corkscrew makes it look more like 45 degrees rather than 90, but it’s certainly not pointing in the original direction).
#22–Mustard==thanks. You are right on both counts.
I think the wiki article is so poorly written as to be wrong. With just plain reading “with the nose pointing at a 90-degree angle (“sideways”) to the general path of flight” does not describe a corkscew path “in which the nose remains pointed generally along the flight path.”
How can the nose be at 90 degrees and along the flight path at the same time?
Communication is such a difficult art.
#20 – ““In aviation, the maneuver includes a constant variation of attitude in all three axes, and at the midpoint (top) of the roll, the aircraft is flying inverted, with the nose pointing at a 90-degree angle (”sideways”) to the general path of flight.”
Study the fly-by-wire system on the F-16. The computer controls the flight surfaces. A pilot couldn’t fly an F-16 on direct input. The computer interprets the pilots control input to achieve the desired result. A lot different than non-fly-by-wire.
Must’ve been Tom Cruise doing a barrel-roll at Fenway.
#24–Pat==I don’t know what you mean to convey by only repeating what has already been said. Did you fail to post a third paragraph?
Anyway, made me look up fly by wire and I found this rather interesting article.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm
#26 – Really. I didn’t see any other post that mentioned the fly-by-wire system or the inherent instability of the F-16.
I agree, Mr. B; the article was pretty poorly written. But hey, it’s free. You get what you pay for. I think whatever a barrel roll is (based in part on the video here on dvorak dot org slash blog), it’s not just twiddling the plane around on the longitudinal axis.
And my point wasn’t really technical details of the maneuver, it was the statement that it was “difficult”, making me think it might not be something you’d want folks to do over Fenway Park. I’ve seen planes crash at air shows doing stuff that looks easier than that. Granted, that was at the county fair or somewhere, and the pilots were probably drunk…
#27–Pat==think of your audience. Mustard and bobbo. We need all the transitional phrases possible to direct our minimal attention. eg. “Its also interesting to note that the f-16 was the first blah, blah, blah.”
Regarding my referenced article, I know the F-4 was a flying brick but I didn’t know it was as bad as that article points out.
28–Mustard, add calling a barrel reoll “difficult” as another error in the wikipedea Article. First bad entry I have come across.
>>Mustard, add calling a barrel reoll
>>“difficult” as another error in the
>>wikipedea Article.
Well, if you consider zooming in a corkscrew pattern around three planes at close range “not difficult”, te salute, Don Corleone. You’re a better man than I, Gunga Din, as Rudyard Kipling might have said.